| From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Soumya S Murali <soumyamurali(dot)work(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com" <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, "byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com" <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Checkpointer write combining |
| Date: | 2025-12-15 21:48:40 |
| Message-ID: | CAAKRu_bxSQ88p8CJfDtfFOeyRch8oCfein0yaim-2vUpBYhs-g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 4:36 AM Soumya S Murali
<soumyamurali(dot)work(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> With reference to the last patches (v11) I received [1] and while reviewing Melanie’s latest feedback, I understood that PageSetBatchChecksumInplace() is currently WIP and depends on upcoming changes to hint-bit locking. It will be contrary to the flow if I propose new functional changes to checksum batching at this time. So for now I will focus on preparatory or documentation improvements until I get the updates on dependencies.
> Regarding my patch attached, the patch introduces write-combining during checkpoints by batching contiguous buffers and allowing them to be written using vectorized I/O. My patch includes write-combining for checkpoint buffer flushes, contiguous buffer batching, Preserved WAL ordering, locking, and buffer state invariants. The change is currently limited to the checkpointer path (BufferSync()). So far I tested my implementation and found that all the regression (233 tests) and isolation tests (121 tests) got passed, the manual pgbench validation completed successfully and also verified pg_stat_bgwriter counters before and after checkpoints. So far the implementation is stable in my system.
Can you explain how your implementation differs from what was posted
in v11 0006 [1]? That implements checkpointer write combining. I'm
open to ideas for improving the code, but I don't understand how your
patch is supposed to fit into the ongoing work on this thread.
- Melanie
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2025-12-15 21:50:04 | Re: Periodic authorization expiration checks using GoAway message |
| Previous Message | Greg Burd | 2025-12-15 21:46:11 | Re: Expanding HOT updates for expression and partial indexes |