Re: max_wal_senders must die

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: max_wal_senders must die
Date: 2010-10-20 22:17:31
Message-ID: 4CBF6A7B.9060103@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> Quite. Josh, have you got any evidence showing that the penalty is
> only 10%? There are cases, such as COPY and ALTER TABLE, where
> you'd be looking at 2X or worse penalties, because of the existing
> optimizations that avoid writing WAL at all for operations where a
> single final fsync can serve the purpose. I'm not sure what the
> penalty for "typical" workloads is, partly because I'm not sure what
> should be considered a "typical" workload for this purpose.

If we could agree on some workloads, I could run some benchmarks. I'm
not sure what those would be though, given that COPY and ALTER TABLE
aren't generally included in most benchmarks. I could see how
everything else is effected, though.

--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-10-20 22:33:00 Re: pg_rawdump
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-10-20 22:15:43 Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies