Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements
Date: 2023-05-09 03:57:21
Message-ID: ZFnEocTtQ/1TuUd/@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 09:24:14AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> I'll pick a test case that generates a reasonable amount of WAL 256
> bytes. What do you think of the following?
>
> test-case 2: -T900, WAL ~256 bytes (for c in 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256
> 512 768 1024 2048 4096 - takes 3.5hrs)
> test-case 2: -t1000000, WAL ~256 bytes
>
> If okay, I'll fire the tests.

Sounds like a sensible duration, yes. What's your setting for
min/max_wal_size? I assume that there are still 16GB throttled with
target_completion at 0.9?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2023-05-09 04:02:03 Re: DROP DATABASE is interruptible
Previous Message Bharath Rupireddy 2023-05-09 03:54:14 Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements