Re: Pre-allocating WAL files - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Maxim Orlov
Subject Re: Pre-allocating WAL files
Date
Msg-id CACG=ezb5Os_ohi1caZJLKsGJc-nSSqGXFrMjmKw4qN8fG_=NEg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Pre-allocating WAL files  (Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Pre-allocating WAL files
Re: Pre-allocating WAL files
List pgsql-hackers
I did check the patch too and found it to be ok. Check and check-world are passed.
Overall idea seems to be good in my opinion, but I'm not sure where is the optimal place to put the pre-allocation.

On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 2:46 PM Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> wrote:
> pre-allocating during checkpoints.  I've done a few pgbench runs, and
> it seems to work pretty well.  Initialization is around 15% faster,
> and I'm seeing about a 5% increase in TPS with a simple-update
> workload with wal_recycle turned off.  Of course, these improvements
> go away once segments can be recycled.

I've checked the patch v7. It applies cleanly, code is good, check-world tests passed without problems. 
I think it's ok to use checkpointer for this and the overall patch can be committed. But the seen performance gain makes me think again before adding this feature. I did tests myself a couple of months ago and got similar results.
Really don't know whether is it worth the effort.

Wish you and all hackers happy New Year!
--
Best regards,
Pavel Borisov

Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.com


--
---
Best regards,
Maxim Orlov.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Borisov
Date:
Subject: Re: Pre-allocating WAL files
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: ICU for global collation