Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Masahiko Sawada
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager
Date
Msg-id CAD21AoBz3Yd7RYUZh0WEdXXisNKGxOJWauamwR_U1HfQ-W-tLA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweightlock manager  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2017-12-13 16:02:45 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> When we add extra blocks on a relation do we access to the disk? I
>> guess we just call lseek and write and don't access to the disk. If so
>> the performance degradation regression might not be much.
>
> Usually changes in the file size require the filesystem to perform
> metadata operations, which in turn requires journaling on most
> FSs. Which'll often result in synchronous disk writes.
>

Thank you. I understood the reason why this measurement should use two
different filesystems.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade failed with error - ERROR: column "a" inchild table must be marked NOT NULL
Next
From: John Naylor
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: a way forward on bootstrap data