Re: [HACKERS] An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [HACKERS] An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqQQn1LikOd-YKUo80LgXRDr2U8R0FURe3Fu5xyNpmSt8Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention  (jasrajd <jasrajd@microsoft.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention  (Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention  (Sokolov Yura <y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 4:57 PM, jasrajd <jasrajd@microsoft.com> wrote:
> We are also seeing contention on the walwritelock and repeated writes to the
> same offset if we move the flush outside the lock in the Azure environment.
> pgbench doesn't scale beyond ~8 cores without saturating the IOPs or
> bandwidth. Is there more work being done in this area?

As of now, there is no patch in the development queue for Postgres 11
that is dedicated to this particularly lock contention. There is a
patch for LWlocks in general with power PC, but that's all:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/984/

Not sure if Kuntal has plans to submit again this patch. It is
actually a bit sad to not see things moving on and use an approach to
group flushes.
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq