pgsql: Rethink checkpointer's fsync-request table representation. - Mailing list pgsql-committers

From Tom Lane
Subject pgsql: Rethink checkpointer's fsync-request table representation.
Date
Msg-id E1Ss098-0000hI-JP@gemulon.postgresql.org
Whole thread Raw
List pgsql-committers
Rethink checkpointer's fsync-request table representation.

Instead of having one hash table entry per relation/fork/segment, just have
one per relation, and use bitmapsets to represent which specific segments
need to be fsync'd.  This eliminates the need to scan the whole hash table
to implement FORGET_RELATION_FSYNC, which fixes the O(N^2) behavior
recently demonstrated by Jeff Janes for cases involving lots of TRUNCATE or
DROP TABLE operations during a single checkpoint cycle.  Per an idea from
Robert Haas.

(FORGET_DATABASE_FSYNC still sucks, but since dropping a database is a
pretty expensive operation anyway, we'll live with that.)

In passing, improve the delayed-unlink code: remove the pass over the list
in mdpreckpt, since it wasn't doing anything for us except supporting a
useless Assert in mdpostckpt, and fix mdpostckpt so that it will absorb
fsync requests every so often when clearing a large backlog of deletion
requests.

Branch
------
master

Details
-------
http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/be86e3dd5b42c33387ae976c014e6276c9439f7f

Modified Files
--------------
src/backend/storage/smgr/md.c |  437 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
1 files changed, 256 insertions(+), 181 deletions(-)


pgsql-committers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: pgsql: Send only one FORGET_RELATION_FSYNC request when dropping a rela
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: pgsql: Make new event trigger facility actually do something.