| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgbench -i spends all its time doing CHECKPOINT |
| Date: | 2002-01-06 18:01:41 |
| Message-ID: | 200201061801.g06I1fb24803@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > Could we remove lines 552-560 of pgbench.c? The behavior that guarded
> > against is long gone, and forcing a checkpoint every few thousand tuples
> > seems to be putting a huge crimp in the speed of pgbench -i ...
>
> Yup. Maybe we could ifdef'ed out until we implement true UNDO...
I think we should just remove it. The idea that we are going to do UNDO
which allows unlimited log file growth for long transactions seems like
a loser to me.
Actually, that brings up a question I had. In 7.1.0, we didn't recycle
WAL segements that were used by open transactions during CHECKPOINT,
while in 7.1.3 and later, we do recycle them after CHECKPOINT. My
question is if we do a big transaction that needs 10 log segments, do we
force an early CHECKPOINT to clear out the WAL segments or do we just
wait for the proper interval?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-06 18:37:34 | Re: pgbench -i spends all its time doing CHECKPOINT |
| Previous Message | Doug McNaught | 2002-01-06 14:24:21 | Re: fork() while connected |