Re: Improvement of checkpoint IO scheduler for stable transaction responses - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Improvement of checkpoint IO scheduler for stable transaction responses
Date
Msg-id 21929.1372951265@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Improvement of checkpoint IO scheduler for stable transaction responses  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I don't like going in this direction at all:
> 1) it breaks pg_upgrade. Which means many of the bigger users won't be
>    able to migrate to this and most packagers would carry the old
>    segsize around forever.
>    Even if we could get pg_upgrade to split files accordingly link mode
>    would still be broken.

TBH, I think *any* rearrangement of the on-disk storage files is going
to be rejected.  It seems very unlikely to me that you could demonstrate
a checkpoint performance improvement from that that occurs consistently
across different platforms and filesystems.  And as Andres points out,
the pain associated with it is going to be bad enough that a very high
bar will be set on whether you've proven the change is worthwhile.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Mention in bgworker docs that db connection needs shmem access
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Improvement of checkpoint IO scheduler for stable transaction responses