| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |
| Date: | 2016-01-20 15:37:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20160120153701.GB1130@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-01-20 12:16:24 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > The relevant thread is at
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoaCr3kDPafK5ygYDA9mF9zhObGp_13q0XwkEWsScw6h%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com
> > what I didn't remember is that I voiced concern back then about exactly this:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/201112011518.29964.andres%40anarazel.de
> > ;)
>
> Interesting. If we consider for a minute that part of the cause for the
> slowdown is slowness in pg_clog, maybe we should reconsider the initial
> decision to flush as quickly as possible (i.e. adopt a strategy where
> walwriter sleeps a bit between two flushes) in light of the group-update
> feature for CLOG being proposed by Amit Kapila in another thread -- it
> seems that these things might go hand-in-hand.
I don't think it's strongly related - the contention here is on read
access to the clog, not on write access. While Amit's patch will reduce
the impact of that a bit, I don't see it making a fundamental
difference.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2016-01-20 15:40:14 | Releasing in September |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-01-20 15:34:11 | Re: Proposal for UPDATE: do not insert new tuple on heap if update does not change data |