Re: [HACKERS] An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: [HACKERS] An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention
Date
Msg-id 20170622012406.5u5iaywrtft565nx@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention  (jasrajd <jasrajd@microsoft.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2017-06-21 00:57:32 -0700, jasrajd wrote:
> We are also seeing contention on the walwritelock and repeated writes to the
> same offset if we move the flush outside the lock in the Azure environment.
> pgbench doesn't scale beyond ~8 cores without saturating the IOPs or
> bandwidth. Is there more work being done in this area?

I kind of doubt that scalability limit is directly related to this patch
- I've seen postgres scale furhter without that lock becoming the prime
issue.  What exactly are you measuring / observing?

Andres Freund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ASOF join