Re: Improve WALRead() to suck data directly from WAL buffers when possible - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nathan Bossart
Subject Re: Improve WALRead() to suck data directly from WAL buffers when possible
Date
Msg-id 20230301041523.GA1453450@nathanxps13
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Improve WALRead() to suck data directly from WAL buffers when possible  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Improve WALRead() to suck data directly from WAL buffers when possible  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 10:38:31AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 6:14 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why do we only read a page at a time in XLogReadFromBuffersGuts()?  What is
>> preventing us from copying all the data we need in one go?
> 
> Note that most of the WALRead() callers request a single page of
> XLOG_BLCKSZ bytes even if the server has less or more available WAL
> pages. It's the streaming replication wal sender that can request less
> than XLOG_BLCKSZ bytes and upto MAX_SEND_SIZE (16 * XLOG_BLCKSZ). And,
> if we read, say, MAX_SEND_SIZE at once while holding
> WALBufMappingLock, that might impact concurrent inserters (at least, I
> can say it in theory) - one of the main intentions of this patch is
> not to impact inserters much.

Perhaps we should test both approaches to see if there is a noticeable
difference.  It might not be great for concurrent inserts to repeatedly
take the lock, either.  If there's no real difference, we might be able to
simplify the code a bit.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions)
Next
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: Track Oldest Initialized WAL Buffer Page