Re: [Patch] Batch fsyncs when recycling WAL segments - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ayush Tiwari
Subject Re: [Patch] Batch fsyncs when recycling WAL segments
Date
Msg-id CAJTYsWVAD_-cz7KMj-CLp8CAwZKQsoDhdi46JrxDxkqH5Xe4ig@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: [Patch] Batch fsyncs when recycling WAL segments  (Ayush Tiwari <ayushtiwari.slg01@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On Thu, 3 Sept 2026 at 00:27, Ayush Tiwari <ayushtiwari.slg01@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I had another pass at this and have attached v3, now split into two patches.
> The removal and recycling cases have one important difference: only recycling
> exposes a new WAL filename to the write path.
>
> 0001 is the straightforward bit.  For segments that a checkpoint removes, it
> does the unlinks first, fsyncs pg_wal once, and then cleans up the archive
> status files.  I left the timeline-switch path alone.  This is not only for
> wal_recycle=off; with recycling enabled, surplus segments still take the
> removal path.
>
> I reran the removal benchmark with the default 16 MiB WAL segment size.  The
> numbers below are for 0001 alone; 0002 was not applied.  This was on ext4 with
> fsync enabled and wal_recycle=off, so every eligible segment went through the
> removal path.  Each number is the median of five alternating runs after three
> warmups:
>
>   files removed    master    0001
>               1     22 ms    23 ms
>               8     53 ms    32 ms
>              32    135 ms    64 ms
>              64    201 ms    97 ms
>             128    394 ms   154 ms
>
> 0002 is the awkward bit, and I have left it marked WIP.  Going back over v2,
> I found a hole in the durable-segment high-water mark.  A foreground process
> can find the names in the pending recycle batch already occupied, install its
> own segment at a higher number, and move the frontier past lower renames that
> are not durable yet.
>
> The current patch plugs that hole with an active-batch marker.  While a batch
> is in flight, XLogFileInit() takes the file-and-directory fsync fallback even
> if the frontier says the segment is covered.  The new TAP test forces exactly
> this interleaving; without the marker check, it times out waiting for the
> fallback.
>
> That handles the case I found, but I am still on the fence about 0002.  It
> feels like a fair amount of plumbing between checkpoint cleanup and the WAL
> write path just to save these fsyncs.  Is there a cleaner invariant that I am
> missing, or a less invasive way to make the batched renames safe?

Attached v4, rebased on master.

I noticed I'd made directory-sync failures PANIC by default in v3.
0001 now keeps the old LOG-level behavior and leaves archive status
alone if the batch sync fails.

0002 is just rebased, with its TAP test renumbered. I've kept it WIP
and added a nocfbot prefix pending discussion.

Regards,
Ayush

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Manu
Date:
Subject: Partial indexes on system catalogs
Next
From: Joao Detomini
Date:
Subject: doc: Document Linux cgroup memory limits