Re: Potential Large Performance Gain in WAL synching - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Potential Large Performance Gain in WAL synching
Date
Msg-id 17503.1033707041@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Potential Large Performance Gain in WAL synching  ("Curtis Faith" <curtis@galtair.com>)
Responses Re: Potential Large Performance Gain in WAL synching  ("Curtis Faith" <curtis@galtair.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Curtis Faith" <curtis@galtair.com> writes:
> The REAL issue and the one that will greatly affect total system
> throughput is that of contention on the file locks. Since fsynch needs to
> obtain a write lock on the file descriptor, as does the write calls which
> originate from XLogWrite as the writes are written to the disk, other
> back-ends will block while another transaction is committing if the
> log cache fills to the point where their XLogInsert results in a 
> XLogWrite call to flush the log cache.

But that's exactly *why* we have a log cache: to ensure we can buffer a
reasonable amount of log data between XLogFlush calls.  If the above
scenario is really causing a problem, doesn't that just mean you need
to increase wal_buffers?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Return of INSTEAD rules
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Return of INSTEAD rules