Re: WALInsertLock contention - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: WALInsertLock contention
Date
Msg-id BANLkTini_6-YoOy+hzWdkCfRifEsqG5R7A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WALInsertLock contention  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: WALInsertLock contention
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
> You're probably right.  I think though there is enough hypothetical
> upside to the private buffer case that it should be attempted just to
> see what breaks. The major tricky bit is dealing with the new
> pin/unpin mechanics.  I'd like to give it the 'college try'. (being
> typically vain and attention seeking, this is right up my alley) :-D.

Well, I think it's fairly clear what will break:

- If you make the data-file buffer completely private, then what will
happen when some other backend needs to read or write that buffer?
- If you make the XLOG spool private, you will not be able to checkpoint.

But I just work here.  Feel free to hit your head on that brick wall
all you like.  If you manage to make a hole (in the wall, not your
head), I'll be as happy as anyone to climb through...!

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: literature on write-ahead logging
Next
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: SSI work for 9.1