On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> I realize that this isn't terribly critical, but I'd like to suggest
> that commit_delay be made PGC_SIGHUP on 9.3 (it's currently
> PGC_USERSET). It's not that a poorly chosen commit_delay setting has
> the potential to adversely affect other backends where the setting
> *has* been set in those other backends in a suitable way - the same
> thing can surely be said for work_mem. It just seems to me that
> commit_delay is now something that's intended to work at the cluster
> granularity, and as such it seems like almost a misrepresentation to
> make it PGC_USERSET.
>
> The fact is that whichever backend happens to end up becoming the
> group commit leader from one XLogFlush() call to the next is, for all
> practical purposes, unpredictable. You cannot reasonably hope to avoid
> a delay within an important transaction that needs to prioritize
> keeping its own latency low over total cluster throughput. If you set
> commit_delay to 0 in your important transaction with this is mind,
> your chances of becoming the group commit leader and avoiding the
> delay are slim to almost none. Much more often than not, the important
> transaction will end up becoming a group commit follower, and it'll
> still spend a significant fraction of commit_delay (about 1/2, on
> average) blocking on LWLockAcquireOrWait().
This may be true, but so what? We don't generally restrict changing
GUC settings on the grounds that people probably won't wish to do so
because it isn't useful. We restrict it in situations where it is not
technically possible or is liable to be harmful.
I'm of the opinion that we should try to keep as many things
PGC_USERSET as we possibly can. It makes life easier for DBAs.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
