Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early
От | Bossart, Nathan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 68120830-3A34-4C4F-942F-6739DAA664CF@amazon.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early (Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>) |
Ответы |
Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/17/20, 9:15 PM, "Kyotaro Horiguchi" <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote: > At Thu, 17 Dec 2020 22:20:35 +0000, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote in >> On 12/15/20, 2:33 AM, "Kyotaro Horiguchi" <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote: >> > You're right in that regard. There's a window where partial record is >> > written when write location passes F0 after insertion location passes >> > F1. However, remembering all spanning records seems overkilling to me. >> >> I'm curious why you feel that recording all cross-segment records is >> overkill. IMO it seems far simpler to just do that rather than try to > > Sorry, my words are not enough. Remembering all spanning records in > *shared memory* seems to be overkilling. Much more if it is stored in > shared hash table. Even though it rarely the case, it can fail hard > way when reaching the limit. If we could do well by remembering just > two locations, we wouldn't need to worry about such a limitation. I don't think it will fail if we reach max_size for the hash table. The comment above ShmemInitHash() has this note: * max_size is the estimated maximum number of hashtable entries. This is * not a hard limit, but the access efficiency will degrade if it is * exceeded substantially (since it's used to compute directory size and * the hash table buckets will get overfull). > Another concern about the concrete patch: > > NotifySegmentsReadyForArchive() searches the shared hashacquiaing a > LWLock every time XLogWrite is called while segment archive is being > held off. I don't think it is acceptable and I think it could be a > problem when many backends are competing on WAL. This is a fair point. I did some benchmarking with a few hundred connections all doing writes, and I was not able to discern any noticeable performance impact. My guess is that contention on this new lock is unlikely because callers of XLogWrite() must already hold WALWriteLock. Otherwise, I believe we only acquire ArchNotifyLock no more than once per segment to record new record boundaries. Nathan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: