Re: [HACKERS] subscription worker signalling wal writer too much - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: [HACKERS] subscription worker signalling wal writer too much
Date
Msg-id 20170614222019.jypjfrb67ssjarhe@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] subscription worker signalling wal writer too much  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] subscription worker signalling wal writer too much
List pgsql-hackers
On 2017-06-14 15:08:49 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > If I publish a pgbench workload and subscribe to it, the subscription
> > worker is signalling the wal writer thousands of times a second, once for
> > every async commit.  This has a noticeable performance cost.
> >
> 
> I've used a local variable to avoid waking up the wal writer more than once
> for the same page boundary.  This reduces the number of wake-ups by about
> 7/8.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't that going to reduce our
guarantees about when asynchronously committed xacts are flushed out?
You can easily fit a number of commits into the same page...   As this
isn't specific to logical-rep, I don't think that's ok.


Have you chased down why there's that many wakeups?  Normally I'd have
expected that a number of the SetLatch() calls get consolidated
together, but I guess walwriter is "too quick" in waking up and
resetting the latch?


Greetings,

Andres Freund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] subscription worker signalling wal writer too much
Next
From: Christian Ullrich
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm failures on woodlouse (in ecpg-check)