Excessive PostmasterIsAlive calls slow down WAL redo
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Excessive PostmasterIsAlive calls slow down WAL redo |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 7261eb39-0369-f2f4-1bb5-62f3b6083b5e@iki.fi обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: Excessive PostmasterIsAlive calls slow down WAL redo
Re: Excessive PostmasterIsAlive calls slow down WAL redo Re: Excessive PostmasterIsAlive calls slow down WAL redo |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
I started looking at the "Improve compactify_tuples and PageRepairFragmentation" patch, and set up a little performance test of WAL replay. I ran pgbench, scale 5, to generate about 1 GB of WAL, and timed how long it takes to replay that WAL. To focus purely on CPU overhead, I kept the data directory in /dev/shm/. Profiling that, without any patches applied, I noticed that a lot of time was spent in read()s on the postmaster-death pipe, i.e. in PostmasterIsAlive(). We call that between *every* WAL record. As a quick test to see how much that matters, I commented out the PostmasterIsAlive() call from HandleStartupProcInterrupts(). On unpatched master, replaying that 1 GB of WAL takes about 20 seconds on my laptop. Without the PostmasterIsAlive() call, 17 seconds. That seems like an utter waste of time. I'm almost inclined to call that a performance bug. As a straightforward fix, I'd suggest that we call HandleStartupProcInterrupts() in the WAL redo loop, not on every record, but only e.g. every 32 records. That would make the main redo loop less responsive to shutdown, SIGHUP, or postmaster death, but that seems OK. There are also calls to HandleStartupProcInterrupts() in the various other loops, that wait for new WAL to arrive or recovery delay, so this would only affect the case where we're actively replaying records. - Heikki
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: