Re: Uh, I change my mind about commit_delay + commit_siblings (sort of)
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Uh, I change my mind about commit_delay + commit_siblings (sort of) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+U5nMLRRD-+GWmAYC_=3Rrr5vOyRvJk4+ogqD_eu5ZyLTSYYg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Uh, I change my mind about commit_delay + commit_siblings (sort of) (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Uh, I change my mind about commit_delay + commit_siblings (sort of)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 31 May 2012 13:16, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> I've looked at this more closely now and I can see that the call to >> XLogFlush() that is made from xact_redo_commit_internal() doesn't ever >> actually flush WAL, so whether we delay or not is completely >> irrelevant. >> >> So un-agreed. No change required to patch there. > > I think Peter's suggestion of forcibly setting the delay to 0 in the > startup process is a good one, though. It's one line of code, and if > it isn't strictly necessary today, it still seems like good > future-proofing. Adding a line that does nothing is not a good idea. The Startup process flushes very, very few WAL messages, so the setting is irrelevant. > I am not very happy about the idea of renaming commit_* to > group_commit_*. It's basically a cosmetic renaming, and breaking > existing configuration files for cosmetic purposes does not seem > warranted to me, especially when the old and new names are so close. > I certainly don't think we can do that in 9.2, now that beta1 has > already shipped. Modifying the default contents of postgresql.conf > after we've shipped beta has been a historical no-no for reasons that > escape me at the moment, but IIRC they're not stupid reasons. > > Frankly, I think this whole thing should be pushed to 9.3. The > commit_delay and commit_siblings knobs suck, but they've sucked for a > long time, and it won't kill anybody to wait another release cycle to > fix them. We have plenty of more important things queued up for 9.3 > already, and I don't believe there's any compelling reason to think > that this particular thing needs preferential treatment. No problem with pushing a variable rename through to 9.3. To be honest, I don't care whether we rename them or not. What matters is that we have a patch that provides a massive performance gain in write performance in just a few lines of code, and that should be committed to 9.2. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: