From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Decouple last important WAL record LSN from WAL insert locks |
Date: | 2022-11-26 21:13:36 |
Message-ID: | 20221126211336.y57vh746f5bat5h3@awork3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-11-23 19:12:07 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> While working on something else, I noticed that each WAL insert lock
> tracks its own last important WAL record's LSN (lastImportantAt) and
> both the bgwriter and checkpointer later computes the max
> value/server-wide last important WAL record's LSN via
> GetLastImportantRecPtr(). While doing so, each WAL insertion lock is
> acquired in exclusive mode in a for loop. This seems like too much
> overhead to me.
GetLastImportantRecPtr() should be a very rare operation, so it's fine for it
to be expensive. The important thing is for the maintenance of the underlying
data to be very cheap.
> I quickly coded a patch (attached herewith) that
> tracks the server-wide last important WAL record's LSN in
> XLogCtlInsert (lastImportantPos) protected with a spinlock and gets
> rid of lastImportantAt from each WAL insert lock.
That strikes me as a very bad idea. It adds another point of contention to a
very very hot code path, to make a very rare code path cheaper.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-11-26 21:18:13 | Re: Allow processes to reset procArrayGroupNext themselves instead of leader resetting for all the followers |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-11-26 21:05:25 | Re: MSVC vs Perl |