Re: Handing off SLRU fsyncs to the checkpointer - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Handing off SLRU fsyncs to the checkpointer
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGL8PK-SXWCHgJw-cSrSjgESethAkCn=tGYq4MDoRH38bA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Handing off SLRU fsyncs to the checkpointer  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Handing off SLRU fsyncs to the checkpointer  (Jakub Wartak <Jakub.Wartak@tomtom.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 6:06 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> [patch]

Bitrot, rebased, no changes.

> Yeah, the combined effect of these two patches is better than I
> expected.  To be clear though, I was only measuring the time between
> the "redo starts at ..." and "redo done at ..." messages, since I've
> been staring at the main recovery code, but there are also some more
> fsyncs before (SyncDataDirectory()) and after (RemoveOldXlogFiles())
> that are unaffected.  I think it's probably possible to do something
> about those too, but that's another topic.

... and of course the end-of-recovery checkpoint; in my tests this
wasn't materially changed since there isn't actually very much CLOG,
it's just that we avoided syncing it block at a time and getting
rescheduled.  FWIW I put a very simple test here:
https://github.com/macdice/redo-bench, YMMV.

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: Autonomous database is coming to Postgres?
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner