Re: XLogInsert scaling, revisited - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ants Aasma
Subject Re: XLogInsert scaling, revisited
Date
Msg-id CA+CSw_vw6+QH90yPZ49batYj9SjDUkK9vWBT0W1PqeN__Aqo0A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: XLogInsert scaling, revisited  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>)
Responses Re: XLogInsert scaling, revisited
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
> Ok, I've committed this patch now. Finally, phew!

Fantastic work!

> I simplified the handling of xlogInsertingAt per discussion, and added the
> memory barrier to GetXLogBuffer(). I ran again the pgbench tests I did
> earlier with the now-committed version of the patch (except for some comment
> changes). The results are here:

I can't see a reason why a full memory barrier is needed at
GetXLogBuffer, we just need to ensure that we read the content of the
page after we check the end pointer from xlblocks. A read barrier is
enough here unless there is some other undocumented interaction. I
don't think it matters for performance, but it seems like good
practice to have the barriers exactly matching the documentation.

Regards,
Ants Aasma
--
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kohei KaiGai
Date:
Subject: Re: [v9.4] row level security
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Reduce maximum error in tuples estimation after vacuum.