Re: Potential Large Performance Gain in WAL synching
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Potential Large Performance Gain in WAL synching |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 17503.1033707041@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Potential Large Performance Gain in WAL synching ("Curtis Faith" <curtis@galtair.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Potential Large Performance Gain in WAL synching
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Curtis Faith" <curtis@galtair.com> writes: > The REAL issue and the one that will greatly affect total system > throughput is that of contention on the file locks. Since fsynch needs to > obtain a write lock on the file descriptor, as does the write calls which > originate from XLogWrite as the writes are written to the disk, other > back-ends will block while another transaction is committing if the > log cache fills to the point where their XLogInsert results in a > XLogWrite call to flush the log cache. But that's exactly *why* we have a log cache: to ensure we can buffer a reasonable amount of log data between XLogFlush calls. If the above scenario is really causing a problem, doesn't that just mean you need to increase wal_buffers? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: