Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Group commit, revised

From: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Group commit, revised
Date: 2012-01-31 14:44:19
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 31 January 2012 14:24, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think you're trying to muddy the waters.  Heikki's implementation
> was different than yours, and there are some things about it I'm not
> 100% thrilled with, but it's fundamentally the same concept.  The new
> idea you're describing here is something else entirely.  Instead of
> focusing on a technical critique of one implementation vs. another
> (out of the three we have to choose from), you're looking at cramming
> more optimizations into the implementation you prefer.  I'm pretty
> sure that Heikki's implementation could support that optimization,
> too, if we actually want to do it that way.  But there might be good
> reasons not to do it that way: for example, every transaction commit
> will have to bump the CLOG page LSN, which will delay setting hint
> bits on other transactions on the page in cases where they can now be
> set immediately.  In any event, trying to slip it into the group
> commit patch will serve only to prevent it from getting the separate
> scrutiny which it doubtless deserves.

Well, I also think it deserves separate scrutiny, but it's not as if
it can be reasonably argued that it can be isolated from 1 of those 3
implementations. Our immediate goal is to produce a benchmark of a new
patch, that operates on the same fundamental principle as the original
patch, though with a much reduced code footprint. We then have a
reasonable basis for comparison: The original benchmark (or possibly a
new benchmark on the original patch, which has seemingly identical
performance characteristics to Heikki's anyway), and the new patch.

Peter Geoghegan
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Yeb HavingaDate: 2012-01-31 15:27:08
Subject: Re: [v9.2] Add GUC sepgsql.client_label
Previous:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2012-01-31 14:35:03
Subject: Re: JSON for PG 9.2

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group