Re: Pre-allocating WAL files
| От | Maxim Orlov |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Pre-allocating WAL files |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CACG=ezb5Os_ohi1caZJLKsGJc-nSSqGXFrMjmKw4qN8fG_=NEg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Pre-allocating WAL files (Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Pre-allocating WAL files
Re: Pre-allocating WAL files |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
I did check the patch too and found it to be ok. Check and check-world are passed.
Overall idea seems to be good in my opinion, but I'm not sure where is the optimal place to put the pre-allocation.
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 2:46 PM Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> wrote:
--> pre-allocating during checkpoints. I've done a few pgbench runs, and
> it seems to work pretty well. Initialization is around 15% faster,
> and I'm seeing about a 5% increase in TPS with a simple-update
> workload with wal_recycle turned off. Of course, these improvements
> go away once segments can be recycled.I've checked the patch v7. It applies cleanly, code is good, check-world tests passed without problems.I think it's ok to use checkpointer for this and the overall patch can be committed. But the seen performance gain makes me think again before adding this feature. I did tests myself a couple of months ago and got similar results.Really don't know whether is it worth the effort.Wish you and all hackers happy New Year!
---
Best regards,
Maxim Orlov.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: