Re: WAL Rate Limiting

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WAL Rate Limiting
Date: 2014-01-16 15:52:57
Message-ID: 27643.1389887577@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> writes:
> On 01/16/2014 05:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Do you see a reasonable way to implement this generically for all
>> commands? I don't.

> In suitable safe places, check if you've written too much WAL, and sleep
> if so. Call it CHECK_FOR_WAL_BUDGET(), along the lines of
> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(), but called less frequently. Or maybe
> vacuum_delay_point() is a better analogy. Hopefully you don't need to
> sprinkle them in too many places to be useful.

We probably don't really need to implement it for "all" commands; I think
everyone can agree that, say, ALTER TABLE RENAME COLUMN isn't going to
emit enough WAL to really matter. My point was that we should try to hit
everything that potentially *could* generate lots of WAL, rather than
arbitrarily deciding that some are utility commands and some are not.

For INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE, likely you could do this with a single
CHECK_FOR_WAL_BUDGET() added at a strategic spot in nodeModifyTable.c.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2014-01-16 15:56:08 Re: Why conf.d should be default, and auto.conf and recovery.conf should be in it
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2014-01-16 15:47:51 Re: WAL Rate Limiting