Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large Performance - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large Performance
Date
Msg-id 6061.1033859021@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large  (Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>)
Responses Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large
List pgsql-hackers
Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee> writes:
> Or its solution ;) as instead of the predicting we just write all data
> in log that is ready to be written. If we postpone writing, there will
> be hickups when we suddenly discover that we need to write a whole lot
> of pages (fsync()) after idling the disk for some period.

This part is exactly the same point that I've been proposing to solve
with a background writer process.  We don't need aio_write for that.
The background writer can handle pushing completed WAL pages out to
disk.  The sticky part is trying to gang the writes for multiple 
transactions whose COMMIT records would fit into the same WAL page,
and that WAL page isn't full yet.

The rest of what you wrote seems like wishful thinking about how
aio_write might behave :-(.  I have no faith in it.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Antoine Lobato"
Date:
Subject: Implicit Lock Row
Next
From: Mitch
Date:
Subject: Mailing list unsubscribe - hackers isn't there?