Re: Map WAL segment files on PMEM as WAL buffers

From: Takashi Menjo <takashi(dot)menjo(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com, "Deng, Gang" <gang(dot)deng(at)intel(dot)com>, Takashi Menjo <takashi(dot)menjou(dot)vg(at)hco(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Subject: Re: Map WAL segment files on PMEM as WAL buffers
Date: 2021-10-08 08:07:45
Message-ID: CAOwnP3N9p5byYUag4h+_7Z9+vmDgMNVs+Wuu9n2c6JUFk1jibg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello Matthias,

Thank you for your comment!

> > [ v3-0002-Add-wal_pmem_map-to-GUC.patch ]
> > +extern bool wal_pmem_map;
>
> A lot of the new code in these patches is gated behind this one flag,
> but the flag should never be true on !pmem systems. Could you instead
> replace it with something like the following?
>
> +#ifdef USE_LIBPMEM
> +extern bool wal_pmem_map;
> +#else
> +#define wal_pmem_map false
> +#endif
>
> A good compiler would then eliminate all the dead code from being
> generated on non-pmem builds (instead of the compiler needing to keep
> that code around just in case some extension decides to set
> wal_pmem_map to true on !pmem systems because it has access to that
> variable).

That sounds good. I will introduce it in the next update.

> > [ v3-0004-Map-WAL-segment-files-on-PMEM-as-WAL-buffers.patch ]
> > + if ((uintptr_t) addr & ~PG_DAX_HUGEPAGE_MASK)
> > + elog(WARNING,
> > + "file not mapped on DAX hugepage boundary: path \"%s\" addr %p",
> > + path, addr);
>
> I'm not sure that we should want to log this every time we detect the
> issue; It's likely that once it happens it will happen for the next
> file as well. Maybe add a timeout, or do we generally not deduplicate
> such messages?

Let me give it some thought. I have believed this WARNING is most
unlikely to happen, and is mutually independent from other happenings.
I will try to find a case where the WARNING happens repeatedly; or I
will de-duplicate the messages if it is easier.

Best regards,
Takashi

--
Takashi Menjo <takashi(dot)menjo(at)gmail(dot)com>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2021-10-08 08:13:16 Re: Improve the HINT message of the ALTER command for postgres_fdw
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2021-10-08 08:06:04 Re: More business with $Test::Builder::Level in the TAP tests