Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
>> Based on an idea of Heikki Linnakangas, here is a patch in order to improve
>> 2PC
>> by sending the state files of prepared transactions to shared memory instead
>> of disk.
>
> I don't understand how this can possibly work. The entire point of
> 2PC is that the state file is guaranteed to be on disk so it will
> survive a crash. What good is it if it's in shared memory?
The state files are not fsync'd when they're written, but a copy is
written to WAL so that it can be replayed on crash. With this patch,
it's still written to WAL, but the write to a file on disk is skipped,
and it's stored in shared memory instead.
> Quite aside from that, the fixed size of shared memory makes this seem
> pretty impractical.
Most state files are small. If one doesn't fit in the area reserved for
this, it's written to disk as usual. It's just an optimization.
I'm a bit disappointed by the performance gains. I would've expected
more, given a decent battery-backed-up cache to buffer the WAL fsyncs.
But it looks like they're still causing the most overhead, even with a
battery-backed-up cache.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
