Re: Group Commit - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Group Commit |
Date | |
Msg-id | 200803062221.m26ML9d02750@momjian.us Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Group Commit ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Group Commit
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
Should we remove these now that we have async commit? #commit_delay = 0 # range 0-100000, in microseconds#commit_siblings = 5 # range1-1000 They seem unfixable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 11:40 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes: > > >> I've been working on the patch to enhance our group commit behavior. The > > >> patch is a dirty hack at the moment, but I'm settled on the algorithm > > >> I'm going to use and I know the issues involved. > > > > > > One question that just came to mind is whether Simon's no-commit-wait > > > patch doesn't fundamentally alter the context of discussion for this. > > I was certainly intending that it would. > > > > Aside from the prospect that people won't really care about group commit > > > if they can just use the periodic-WAL-sync approach, ISTM that one way > > > to get group commit is to just make everybody wait for the dedicated > > > WAL writer to write their commit record. With a sufficiently short > > > delay between write/fsync attempts in the background process, won't > > > that net out at about the same place as a complicated group-commit > > > patch? > > > > Possibly. To get efficient group commit there would need to be some kind > > of signaling between the WAL writer and normal backends. I think there > > is some in the patch, but I'm not sure if it gives efficient group > > commit. A constant delay will just give us something similar to > > commit_delay. > > Agreed. > > > I've refrained from spending time on group commit until the > > commit-no-wait patch lands, because it's going to conflict anyway. I'm > > starting to feel we should not try to rush group commit into 8.3, unless > > it somehow falls out of the commit-no-wait patch by accident, given that > > we're past feature freeze and coming up with a proper group commit > > algorithm would need a lot of research and testing. Better do it for 8.4 > > with more time, we've got enough features on plate for 8.3 anyway. > > My feeling was that I couldn't get both done for 8.3, and that including > the WAL Writer in 8.3 would make the dev path clearer for a later > attempt upon group commit. > > I think it was worth exploring whether it would be easy, but I think we > can see it'll take a lot of work to make it "fly right". > > -- > Simon Riggs > EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
pgsql-hackers by date: