From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Group Commit |
Date: | 2007-04-09 22:52:19 |
Message-ID: | 15081.1176159139@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> I've been working on the patch to enhance our group commit behavior. The
> patch is a dirty hack at the moment, but I'm settled on the algorithm
> I'm going to use and I know the issues involved.
One question that just came to mind is whether Simon's no-commit-wait
patch doesn't fundamentally alter the context of discussion for this.
Aside from the prospect that people won't really care about group commit
if they can just use the periodic-WAL-sync approach, ISTM that one way
to get group commit is to just make everybody wait for the dedicated
WAL writer to write their commit record. With a sufficiently short
delay between write/fsync attempts in the background process, won't
that net out at about the same place as a complicated group-commit
patch?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2007-04-10 00:55:47 | Re: Adjusting index special storage for pg_filedump's convenience |
Previous Message | Weslee Bilodeau | 2007-04-09 21:40:28 | Re: Partitioned tables constraint_exclusion |