On 07.06.2011 10:21, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It strikes me, though, that we
>> could probably get nearly all of the benefit of this patch by being
>> willing to zero the first sizeof(XLogRecord) bytes following a record,
>> but not the rest of the buffer. That would pretty much wipe out any
>> chance of an xl_prev match, I think, and would likely still get nearly
>> all of the performance benefit.
>
> Which adds something onto the path of every XlogInsert(), rather than
> once per page, so I'm a little hesitant to agree.
You would only need to do it just before you write out the WAL. I guess
you'd need to grab WALInsertLock in XLogWrite() to prevent more WAL
records from being inserted on the page until you're done zeroing it,
though.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
