From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <rhaas(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make walsender more responsive. |
Date: | 2012-07-02 18:50:23 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob69X5VkULo4WTjTZEns8WxXdJVOKgLfcsDjyAu7NzLxA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | PostgreSQL : PostgreSQL pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> This commit makes the synchronous replication slow down very much
>> when wal_sync_method is set to open_sync or open_datasync. I think
>> the attached patch needs to be applied.
> Hm. Yes, definitely. No idea why I placed the call there, sorry.
Committed.
>> +#define WalSndWakeupProcessRequests() \
>> + do \
>> + { \
>> + if (wake_wal_senders) \
>> + { \
>> + wake_wal_senders = false; \
>> + if (max_wal_senders > 0) \
>> + WalSndWakeup(); \
>> + } \
>> + } while (0)
>>
>> I'm not sure it's really worth doing, but isn't it good idea to test
>> max_wal_sender > 0 first to eliminate any CPU cycle in non replication
>> case?
> I think the difference is ignorable. wake_wal_senders probably has better
> cache locality but is set to true more often, but not that often...
I was wondering if we shouldn't do this as:
if (max_wal_senders > 0 && wake_wal_senders)
WalSndWakeup();
....and then put wake_wal_senders = false into WalSndWakeup().
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2012-07-02 19:16:51 | Re: pgsql: Add missing space in event_source GUC description. |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-07-02 18:48:57 | pgsql: Fix position of WalSndWakeupRequest call. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-07-02 19:45:28 | Re: Ability to listen on two unix sockets |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-07-02 18:42:12 | Re: Event Triggers reduced, v1 |