From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, obartunov <obartunov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal for CSN based snapshots |
Date: | 2016-08-10 15:54:48 |
Message-ID: | 3406288c-9989-5c95-4445-5443b7a7b66f@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/10/2016 08:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
>>> Still, having to invent CSNs seems like a huge loss for this design.
>>> Personally I'd give up async commit first. If we had only sync commit,
>>> the rule could be "xact LSN less than snapshot threshold and less than
>>> WAL flush position", and we'd not need CSNs. I know some people like
>>> async commit, but it's there because it was easy and cheap in our old
>>> design, not because it's the world's greatest feature and worth giving
>>> up performance for.
>>
>> I don't think that's a very popular opinion (I disagree, for one).
>> Asynchronous commits are a huge performance boost for some applications. The
>> alternative is fsync=off, and I don't want to see more people doing that.
>> SSDs have made the penalty of an fsync much smaller, but it's still there.
>
> Uh, yeah. Asynchronous commit can be 100 times faster on some
> realistic workloads. If we remove it, many people will have to decide
> between running with fsync=off and abandoning PostgreSQL altogether.
> That doesn't strike me as a remotely possible line of attack.
+1 for Robert here, removing async commit is a non-starter. It is
PostgreSQL performance 101 that you disable synchronous commit unless
you have a specific data/business requirement that needs it.
Specifically because of how much faster Pg is with async commit.
Sincerely,
jD
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-08-10 16:02:50 | Re: Slowness of extended protocol |
Previous Message | Michael Banck | 2016-08-10 15:54:11 | Re: Is there a way around function search_path killing SQL function inlining? |