| From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Checkpointer write combining |
| Date: | 2025-11-03 23:34:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAAKRu_Z8GtkTPsbScp8QoNF=V1YT3cVT6mPf1sR-NAtSE+jzoQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thanks for continuing to review! I've revised the patches to
incorporate all of your feedback except for where I mention below.
There were failures in CI due to issues with max batch size, so
attached v8 also seeks to fix those.
- Melanie
On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 12:25 AM Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 3 - 0003
> ```
> +/*
> + * Return the next buffer in the ring or InvalidBuffer if the current sweep is
> + * over.
> + */
> +Buffer
> +StrategySweepNextBuffer(BufferAccessStrategy strategy, int *sweep_cursor)
> +{
> + if (++(*sweep_cursor) >= strategy->nbuffers)
> + *sweep_cursor = 0;
> +
> + return strategy->buffers[*sweep_cursor];
> +}
> ```
>
> Feels the function comment is a bit confusing, because the function code doesn’t really perform sweep, the function is just a getter. InvalidBuffer just implies the current sweep is over.
>
> Maybe rephrase to something like: “Return the next buffer in the range. If InvalidBuffer is returned, that implies the current sweep is done."
Yes, actually I think having these helpers mention the sweep is more
confusing than anything else. I've revised them to be named more
generically and updated the comments accordingly.
> 5 - 0004
> ```
> +uint32
> +StrategyMaxWriteBatchSize(BufferAccessStrategy strategy)
> +{
> + uint32 max_possible_buffer_limit;
> + uint32 max_write_batch_size;
> + int strategy_pin_limit;
> +
> + max_write_batch_size = io_combine_limit;
> +
> + strategy_pin_limit = GetAccessStrategyPinLimit(strategy);
> + max_possible_buffer_limit = GetPinLimit();
> +
> + max_write_batch_size = Min(strategy_pin_limit, max_write_batch_size);
> + max_write_batch_size = Min(max_possible_buffer_limit, max_write_batch_size);
> + max_write_batch_size = Max(1, max_write_batch_size);
> + max_write_batch_size = Min(max_write_batch_size, io_combine_limit);
> + Assert(max_write_batch_size < MAX_IO_COMBINE_LIMIT);
> + return max_write_batch_size;
> +}
> ```
>
> This implementation is hard to understand. I tried to simplify it:
> ```
> uint32
> StrategyMaxWriteBatchSize(BufferAccessStrategy strategy)
> {
> int strategy_pin_limit = GetAccessStrategyPinLimit(strategy);
> uint32 max_write_batch_size = Min(GetPinLimit(), (uint32)strategy_pin_limit);
>
> /* Clamp to io_combine_limit and enforce minimum of 1 */
> if (max_write_batch_size > io_combine_limit)
> max_write_batch_size = io_combine_limit;
> if (max_write_batch_size == 0)
> max_write_batch_size = 1;
>
> Assert(max_write_batch_size < MAX_IO_COMBINE_LIMIT);
> return max_write_batch_size;
> }
> ```
I agree that the implementation was hard to understand. I've not quite
gone with your version but I have rewritten it like this:
uint32
StrategyMaxWriteBatchSize(BufferAccessStrategy strategy)
{
uint32 max_write_batch_size = Min(io_combine_limit,
MAX_IO_COMBINE_LIMIT);
int strategy_pin_limit = GetAccessStrategyPinLimit(strategy);
uint32 max_possible_buffer_limit = GetPinLimit();
/* Identify the minimum of the above */
max_write_batch_size = Min(strategy_pin_limit, max_write_batch_size);
max_write_batch_size = Min(max_possible_buffer_limit, max_write_batch_size);
/* Must allow at least 1 IO for forward progress */
max_write_batch_size = Max(1, max_write_batch_size);
return max_write_batch_size;
}
Is this better?
- Melanie
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v8-0001-Refactor-goto-into-for-loop-in-GetVictimBuffer.patch | text/x-patch | 12.3 KB |
| v8-0002-Split-FlushBuffer-into-two-parts.patch | text/x-patch | 7.7 KB |
| v8-0003-Eagerly-flush-bulkwrite-strategy-ring.patch | text/x-patch | 12.6 KB |
| v8-0004-Write-combining-for-BAS_BULKWRITE.patch | text/x-patch | 16.5 KB |
| v8-0005-Add-database-Oid-to-CkptSortItem.patch | text/x-patch | 1.9 KB |
| v8-0006-Implement-checkpointer-data-write-combining.patch | text/x-patch | 10.8 KB |
| v8-0007-WIP-Refactor-SyncOneBuffer-for-bgwriter-only.patch | text/x-patch | 5.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Manni Wood | 2025-11-03 23:49:23 | Re: [PATCH] Add pg_get_tablespace_ddl() function to reconstruct CREATE TABLESPACE statement |
| Previous Message | Mihail Nikalayeu | 2025-11-03 23:03:15 | Re: Issues with ON CONFLICT UPDATE and REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |