Re: commit_delay, siblings

From: "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: commit_delay, siblings
Date: 2005-06-23 02:14:34
Message-ID: d9d62c$2v67$1@news.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


"Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes
> Hackers:
>
> I've been trying to get a test result for 8.1 that shows that we can
eliminate
> commit_delay and commit_siblings, as I believe that these settings no
longer
> have any real effect on performance. However, the checkpointing
performance
> issues have so far prevented me from getting a good test result for this.
>

In my understadning, the commit_delay/commit_siblings combination simulate
the background xlog writer mechanisms in some database like Oracle.

This might be separate issue. We have code in xlogflush() like:

/* done already? */
if (!XLByteLE(record, LogwrtResult.Flush))
{
/* now wait for the write lock */
LWLockAcquire(WALWriteLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
if (XLByteLE(record, LogwrtResult.Flush))
LWLockRelease(WALWriteLock); /* if done already, then release the
lock */
else
/* do it */

If the testing results turns out the "LWLockRelease(WALWriteLock)" actually
happened often, then it indicates that we waste some time on acquiring
WALWriteLock. Would commit_delay/commit_siblings helps or we need a
background xlog writer and notify us the completion of xlogflush is better
(so we don't compete for this lock)?

Regards,
Qingqing

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-06-23 02:55:30 Re: commit_delay, siblings
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-06-23 01:09:22 GiST rtree logic is not right