Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGKfsWj+4qPfOkC4YtYtVO33yrCty1uWxBp3R1OSqWEcyA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 3:47 AM Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:09:29PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> >FYI I am still trying to reproduce and understand the problem Tomas
> >reported; more soon.
>
> Any luck trying to reproduce thigs? Should I try again and collect some
> additional debug info?

No luck.  I'm working on it now, and also trying to reduce the
overheads so that we're not doing extra work when it doesn't help.

By the way, I also looked into recovery I/O stalls *other* than
relation buffer cache misses, and created
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/29/2669/ to fix what I found.  If
you avoid both kinds of stalls then crash recovery is finally CPU
bound (to go faster after that we'll need parallel replay).



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Add MAIN_RELATION_CLEANUP and SECONDARY_RELATION_CLEANUP options to VACUUM
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: FailedAssertion("pd_idx == pinfo->nparts", File: "execPartition.c", Line: 1689)