Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging freezing

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging freezing
Date: 2006-10-31 16:23:40
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Ouch! We did discuss that also. Flushing the buffercache is nasty with
>> very large caches, so this makes autovacuum much less friendly - and
>> could take a seriously long time if you enforce the vacuum delay
>> costings.

> Hmm, isn't the buffer cache aware of a vacuum operation?

Yeah.  What would probably happen is that we'd dump off most of the
dirtied pages to the kernel, which would likely still have a lot of them
in kernel buffers pending write.  But then we'd have to fsync the table
--- so a physical write storm would ensue, which we have no way to

I think the don't-truncate-clog approach is a much better answer.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Teodor SigaevDate: 2006-10-31 16:53:07
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index greater than 8k
Previous:From: Darcy BuskermolenDate: 2006-10-31 16:14:39
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index greater than 8k

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-10-31 17:27:27
Subject: Re: --single-transaction doc clarification
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-10-31 16:04:55
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging freezing

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group