| 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: | 46A60AE5.8080808@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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
counterproductive.
No, not in this release :).
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-07-24 14:29:20 | Re: Async Commit, v21 (now: v22) |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-07-24 14:18:04 | Re: plperl warnings on win32 |