Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling

From: Jerry Jelinek <jerry(dot)jelinek(at)joyent(dot)com>
To: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling
Date: 2018-07-18 19:22:59
Message-ID: CACPQ5FoLYA3eTOr6aYQ1-mp2tS2Npu3fcUFddhCJ-UeiAXiw0A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I've gotten a wide variety of feedback on the proposed patch. The comments
range from rough approval through various discussion about alternative
solutions. At this point I am unsure if this patch is rejected or if it
would be accepted once I had the updated man page changes that were
discussed last week.

I have attached an updated patch which does incorporate man page changes,
in case that is the blocker. However, if this patch is simply rejected, I'd
appreciate it if I could get a definitive statement to that effect.

Thanks,
Jerry

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:35 AM, Jerry Jelinek <jerry(dot)jelinek(at)joyent(dot)com>
wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> Attached is a patch to provide an option to disable WAL recycling. We have
> found that this can help performance by eliminating read-modify-write
> behavior on old WAL files that are no longer resident in the filesystem
> cache. The is a lot more detail on the background of the motivation for
> this in the following thread.
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CACukRjO7DJvub8e2AijOayj8BfKK3
> XXBTwu3KKARiTr67M3E3w%40mail.gmail.com#CACukRjO7DJvub8e2AijOayj8BfKK3
> XXBTwu3KKARiTr67M3E3w(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com
>
> A similar change has been tested against our 9.6 branch that we're
> currently running, but the attached patch is against master.
>
> Thanks,
> Jerry
>
>

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-option-to-disable-WAL-recycling.patch application/octet-stream 4.5 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2018-07-18 19:23:08 Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-07-18 18:44:43 Re: [PG-11] Potential bug related to INCLUDE clause of CREATE INDEX