| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: wal_buffers, redux |
| Date: | 2012-03-14 20:53:58 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYw0K+Dp55P1QttCirMBjgZ+srtW=vG2=dWrti2ddws4w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think my analysis is pretty much a re-wording of yours, but I'd
> emphasize that getting the WALWriteLock is bad not just because they
> fight over the lock, but because someone else (probably background wal
> writer) is camping out on the lock while doing an fsync.
Yeah, good point.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-03-14 20:56:37 | Re: patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Previous Message | ktm@rice.edu | 2012-03-14 20:53:45 | Re: Faster compression, again |