From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fix checkpoint skip logic on idle systems by tracking LSN progress |
Date: | 2016-11-12 04:58:56 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1K0gGQTBxCyKqi6QnqOWGzEoVVPHCgPJ_RkOBoLPejCTA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> on something else than LW_EXCLUSIVE compared to now. To keep things
>> more simple I' would still favor using WALInsertLocks for this patch,
>> that looks more consistent, and also because there is no noticeable
>> difference.
>
> Ok, the patch looks fine. So there's nothing for me but to accept
> the current shape since the discussion about performance seems
> not to be settled with out performance measurement with machines
> with many cores.
>
I think it is good to check the performance impact of this patch on
many core m/c. Is it possible for you to once check with Alexander
Korotkov to see if he can provide you access to his powerful m/c which
has 70 cores (if I remember correctly)?
@@ -1035,6 +1038,7 @@ LogAccessExclusiveLocks(int nlocks,
xl_standby_lock *locks)
XLogBeginInsert();
XLogRegisterData((char *) &xlrec, offsetof(xl_standby_locks, locks));
XLogRegisterData((char *) locks, nlocks * sizeof(xl_standby_lock));
+ XLogSetFlags(XLOG_NO_PROGRESS);
Is it right to set XLOG_NO_PROGRESS flag in LogAccessExclusiveLocks?
This function is called not only in LogStandbySnapshot(), but during
DDL operations as well where lockmode >= AccessExclusiveLock.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2016-11-12 05:13:42 | Re: Contains and is contained by operators of inet datatypes |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-11-12 04:46:08 | Re: pg_dump, pg_dumpall and data durability |