| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |
| Date: | 2016-11-04 09:20:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JHBmkUmWK1vNsBD4qD+EhuAf3FkVDt0r0rxAJc9aTN+A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Tomas Vondra
>> The difference is that both the fast-path locks and msgNumLock went into
>> 9.2, so that end users probably never saw that regression. But we don't know
>> if that happens for clog and WAL.
>>
>> Perhaps you have a working patch addressing the WAL contention, so that we
>> could see how that changes the results?
>
> I don't think we do, yet.
>
Right. At this stage, we are just evaluating the ways (basic idea is
to split the OS writes and Flush requests in separate locks) to reduce
it. It is difficult to speculate results at this stage. I think
after spending some more time (probably few weeks), we will be in
position to share our findings.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2016-11-04 09:25:50 | Re: [RFC] Should we fix postmaster to avoid slow shutdown? |
| Previous Message | Oleksandr Shulgin | 2016-11-04 09:04:27 | Re: Danger of automatic connection reset in psql |