Re: increase size of pg_commit_ts buffers

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: increase size of pg_commit_ts buffers
Date: 2021-03-26 04:14:44
Message-ID: CA+hUKG+zUv0XPdM53YVmAUOVi6sj+VbdrF1UubS=JA_ULWyNtg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 11:56 PM Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> wrote:
> > 16 янв. 2021 г., в 03:07, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> написал(а):
> > Andrey Borodin already has a patch to change the behavior for
> > multixact, which is something we should perhaps also do. I now notice
> > that they're also reporting a bug in that thread ... sigh
>
> I've tried in that thread [0] to do more intelligent optimisation than just increase number of buffers.
> Though, in fact bigger memory had dramatically better effect that lock tricks.
>
> Maybe let's make all SLRUs buffer sizes configurable?

+1

I got interested in the SLRU sizing problem (the lock trick and CV
stuff sounds interesting too, but I didn't have time to review that in
this cycle). The main problem I'm aware of with it is the linear
search, so I tried to fix that. See Andrey's thread for details.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2021-03-26 04:17:21 Re: Get memory contexts of an arbitrary backend process
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2021-03-26 04:01:05 Re: [UNVERIFIED SENDER] Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)?