Re: xlog.c: WALInsertLock vs. WALWriteLock

From: Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, fazool mein <fazoolmein(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: xlog.c: WALInsertLock vs. WALWriteLock
Date: 2010-10-27 14:44:20
Message-ID: 4CC83AC4.5090708@bluegap.ch
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10/26/2010 05:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> And horrible for performance, I imagine. Those locks are highly trafficked.

Note, however, that offloading this to the file-system just moves
congestion there. So we are effectively saying that we expect
filesystems to do a better job (in that aspect) than our WAL implementation.

(Note that I'm not claiming that is or is not true - I didn't measure).

Regards

Markus Wanner

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-10-27 14:49:53 Re: add label to enum syntax
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2010-10-27 14:42:24 Tracking latest timeline in standby mode