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

Re: Async Commit, v21 (now: v22)

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Async Commit, v21 (now: v22)
Date: 2007-07-24 14:21:25
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> Without async commits? Do we really want the walwriter doing the
>> majority of the wal-flushing work for normal commits? It seems like
>> that's not going to be any advantage over just having some random
>> backend do the commit.
> Sure: the advantage is that the backends (ie, user query processing)
> don't get blocked on fsync's.  This is not really different from the
> rationale for having the bgwriter.  It's probably most useful for large
> transactions, which up to now generally had to stop and flush the WAL
> buffers every few pages worth of WAL output.

I wonder what it would take to offload the CRC calculation to the wal
writer. And if that would then become a bottleneck, making it actually

No, not in this release :).

  Heikki Linnakangas

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2007-07-24 14:29:20
Subject: Re: Async Commit, v21 (now: v22)
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2007-07-24 14:18:04
Subject: Re: plperl warnings on win32

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group