Re: 9.4 regression

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net>
Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: 9.4 regression
Date: 2013-08-08 22:23:49
Message-ID: 8351.1376000629@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Does your test program use all the same writing options that the real
>> WAL writes do (like O_DIRECT)?

> I believe so.

>> From xlog.c:

> /* do not use get_sync_bit() here --- want to fsync only at end of fill */
> fd = BasicOpenFile(tmppath, O_RDWR | O_CREAT | O_EXCL | PG_BINARY,
> S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR);

> and from the test program:

> fd = open(filename, O_CREAT | O_EXCL | O_WRONLY, 0600);

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought the performance complaint had to do
with the actual writes of WAL data, not with the pre-fill. That is, you
should not just be measuring how long the pre-fill takes, but what is the
speed of real writes to the file later on (which will be using
get_sync_bit, for various values of the sync settings).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jon Nelson 2013-08-08 22:25:42 Re: 9.4 regression
Previous Message Vik Fearing 2013-08-08 22:02:14 Re: [PATCH] Statistics collection for CLUSTER command