Re: Analysis of ganged WAL writes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD
Subject Re: Analysis of ganged WAL writes
Date
Msg-id 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA4961EB6@m0114.s-mxs.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Analysis of ganged WAL writes  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Analysis of ganged WAL writes  (Greg Copeland <greg@CopelandConsulting.Net>)
Re: Analysis of ganged WAL writes  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> ISTM aio_write only improves the picture if there's some magic in-kernel
> processing that makes this same kind of judgment as to when to issue the
> "ganged" write for real, and is able to do it on time because it's in
> the kernel.  I haven't heard anything to make me think that that feature
> actually exists.  AFAIK the kernel isn't much more enlightened about
> physical head positions than we are.

Can the magic be, that kaio directly writes from user space memory to the
disk ? Since in your case all transactions A-E want the same buffer written,
the memory (not it's content) will also be the same. This would automatically
write the latest possible version of our WAL buffer to disk.

The problem I can see offhand is how the kaio system can tell which transaction
can be safely notified of the write, or whether the programmer is actually responsible
for not changing the buffer until notified of completion ?

Andreas


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Martijn van Oosterhout
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-performance] [GENERAL] Large databases, performance
Next
From: Sir Mordred The Traitor
Date:
Subject: Little note to php coders