Re: simplify register_dirty_segment() - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: simplify register_dirty_segment()
Date
Msg-id 16658.1114418596@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to simplify register_dirty_segment()  ("Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu> writes:
> That is, we don't care if a segment is dirty or not, if someone opened it,
> then we will fsync it at checkpoint time.

On platforms that I'm familiar with, an fsync call causes the kernel
to spend a significant amount of time groveling through its buffers
to see if any are dirty.  We shouldn't incur that cost to buy marginal
speedups at the application level.  (In other words, "it's only an
open/close" is wrong.)

Also, it's not clear to me how this idea works at all, if a backend holds
a relation open across more than one checkpoint.  What will re-register
the segment for the next cycle?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Qingqing Zhou"
Date:
Subject: simplify register_dirty_segment()
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Bad n_distinct estimation; hacks suggested?