On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> That seems like a pretty marginal gain. If you're bound by the speed of
> fsyncs, this will reduce the latency by the time it takes to mark the clog,
> which is tiny in comparison to all the other stuff that needs to happen,
> like, flushing the WAL. And that's ignoring any additional overhead caused
> by the signaling between processes. If you're bound by CPU capacity, this
> doesn't help at all because it just moves the work around.
We're not bound by CPU capacity. Latency is an issue, especially when
contention drives it higher with occasional spikes.
I expect this to have a good measurable impact, as well as a
stabilising effect on the latency.
> Anyway, this is quite different from the original goal and patch for group
> commit, so can we please leave this for 9.3, and move on with the review of
> pending 9.2 patches.
Actually, there is very little change here from the original patch.
But I would note that your own changes were also quite different, and
had no noticeable gain. They were also based on a brand new and
radical set of thoughts.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services