| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Mark Cave-Ayland <m(dot)cave-ayland(at)webbased(dot)co(dot)uk>, "'Manfred Koizar'" <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations |
| Date: | 2005-06-01 14:05:13 |
| Message-ID: | 13490.1117634713@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> If I/O is a problem, then surely you will agree that PreAllocXLog is
> still required and should not be run by a backend?
It is still required, but it isn't run by backends --- it's fired off
during checkpoints. I think there was some discussion recently about
making it more aggressive about allocating future segments; which
strikes me as a good idea.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-01 14:07:36 | Re: Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-01 14:01:06 | Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? |