| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Improve WALRead() to suck data directly from WAL buffers when possible |
| Date: | 2023-03-01 04:15:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20230301041523.GA1453450@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 10:38:31AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 6:14 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Why do we only read a page at a time in XLogReadFromBuffersGuts()? What is
>> preventing us from copying all the data we need in one go?
>
> Note that most of the WALRead() callers request a single page of
> XLOG_BLCKSZ bytes even if the server has less or more available WAL
> pages. It's the streaming replication wal sender that can request less
> than XLOG_BLCKSZ bytes and upto MAX_SEND_SIZE (16 * XLOG_BLCKSZ). And,
> if we read, say, MAX_SEND_SIZE at once while holding
> WALBufMappingLock, that might impact concurrent inserters (at least, I
> can say it in theory) - one of the main intentions of this patch is
> not to impact inserters much.
Perhaps we should test both approaches to see if there is a noticeable
difference. It might not be great for concurrent inserts to repeatedly
take the lock, either. If there's no real difference, we might be able to
simplify the code a bit.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-03-01 04:19:31 | Re: Track Oldest Initialized WAL Buffer Page |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-03-01 03:58:49 | Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions) |