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

Re: Async Commit, v21 (now: v22)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "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 14:01:07
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
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.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2007-07-24 14:02:34
Subject: Re: Async Commit, v21 (now: v22)
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2007-07-24 13:59:15
Subject: Re: plperl warnings on win32

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