Re: GDQ iimplementation - Mailing list pgsql-cluster-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: GDQ iimplementation
Date
Msg-id 4BF1B925.7010809@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: GDQ iimplementation  (Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>)
Responses Re: GDQ iimplementation  (Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com>)
Re: GDQ iimplementation  (Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: GDQ iimplementation  (Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com>)
Re: GDQ iimplementation  (Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>)
List pgsql-cluster-hackers
Jan, Marko, Simon,

I'm concerned that doing anything about the write overhead issue was
discarded almost immediately in this discussion.  This is not a trivial
issue for performance; it means that each row which is being tracked by
the GDQ needs to be written to disk a minimum of 4 times (once to WAL,
once to table, once to WAL for queue, once to queue).  That's at least
one time too many, and effectively doubles the load on the master server.

This is particularly unacceptable overhead for systems where users are
not that interested in retaining the queue after an unexpected shutdown.

Surely there's some way around this?  Some kind of special
fsync-on-write table, for example?  The access pattern to a queue is
quite specialized.

--
                                   -- Josh Berkus
                                      PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
                                      http://www.pgexperts.com

pgsql-cluster-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: BOF at pgCon?
Next
From: Marko Kreen
Date:
Subject: Re: GDQ iimplementation