Re: [HACKERS] fsync method checking

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Manfred Spraul" <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com>
Cc: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Mark Kirkwood" <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] fsync method checking
Date: 2003-12-17 16:57:52
Message-ID: 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA496208C@m0114.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance


> Ideally that path isn't taken very often. But I'm currently having a
> discussion off-list with a CMU student who seems to be seeing a case
> where it happens a lot. (She reports that both WALWriteLock and
> WALInsertLock are causes of a lot of process blockages, which seems to
> mean that a lot of the WAL I/O is being done with both held, which would
> have to mean that AdvanceXLInsertBuffer is doing the I/O.
> More when we figure out what's going on exactly...)

I would figure, that this is in a situation where a large transaction
fills one XLInsertBuffer, and a lot of WAL buffers are not yet written.

Andreas

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2003-12-17 17:12:11 Re: [PATCHES] Double Backslash example patch
Previous Message Michael Meskes 2003-12-17 15:41:45 Re: 7.4 include file conflict

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-12-17 18:34:24 Re: Excessive rows/tuples seriously degrading query
Previous Message Nick Fankhauser 2003-12-17 15:26:25 Re: Nested loop performance