Re: Improve WALRead() to suck data directly from WAL buffers when possible
От | Bharath Rupireddy |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Improve WALRead() to suck data directly from WAL buffers when possible |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CALj2ACU3ZYzjOv4vZTR+LFk5PL4ndUnbLS6E1vG2dhDBjQGy2A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Improve WALRead() to suck data directly from WAL buffers when possible (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:14 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 12:39:13PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 3:30 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Is it possible to memcpy more than a page at a time? > > > > It would complicate things a lot there; the logic to figure out the > > last page bytes that may or may not fit in the whole page gets > > complicated. Also, the logic to verify each page's header gets > > complicated. We might lose out if we memcpy all the pages at once and > > start verifying each page's header in another loop. > > Doesn't the complicated logic you describe already exist to some extent in > the patch? You are copying a page at a time, which involves calculating > various addresses and byte counts. Okay here I am with the v10 patch set attached that avoids multiple memcpy calls which must benefit the callers who want to read more than 1 WAL buffer page (streaming replication WAL sender for instance). > >> + elog(DEBUG1, "read %zu bytes out of %zu bytes from WAL buffers for given LSN %X/%X, Timeline ID %u", > >> + *read_bytes, count, LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(startptr), tli); > >> > >> I definitely don't think we should put an elog() in this code path. > >> Perhaps this should be guarded behind WAL_DEBUG. > > > > Placing it behind WAL_DEBUG doesn't help users/developers. My > > intention was to let users know that the WAL read hit the buffers, > > it'll help them report if any issue occurs and also help developers to > > debug that issue. > > I still think an elog() is mighty expensive for this code path, even when > it doesn't actually produce any messages. And when it does, I think it has > the potential to be incredibly noisy. Well, my motive was to have a way for the user to know WAL buffer hits and misses to report any found issues. However, I have a plan later to add WAL buffer stats (hits/misses). I understand that even if someone enables DEBUG1, this message can bloat server log files and make recovery slower, especially on a standby. Hence, I agree to keep these logs behind the WAL_DEBUG macro like others and did so in the attached v10 patch set. Please review the attached v10 patch set further. -- Bharath Rupireddy PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: