From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WALInsertLock tuning |
Date: | 2011-06-07 07:55:37 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTik0mcXU5eM15EnziqAX5X85AEyUfg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On 07.06.2011 10:21, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It strikes me, though, that we
>>> could probably get nearly all of the benefit of this patch by being
>>> willing to zero the first sizeof(XLogRecord) bytes following a record,
>>> but not the rest of the buffer. That would pretty much wipe out any
>>> chance of an xl_prev match, I think, and would likely still get nearly
>>> all of the performance benefit.
>>
>> Which adds something onto the path of every XlogInsert(), rather than
>> once per page, so I'm a little hesitant to agree.
>
> You would only need to do it just before you write out the WAL. I guess
> you'd need to grab WALInsertLock in XLogWrite() to prevent more WAL records
> from being inserted on the page until you're done zeroing it, though.
How would that help?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2011-06-07 10:59:06 | Re: Vacuum, visibility maps and SKIP_PAGES_THRESHOLD |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-06-07 07:55:05 | Re: SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock |