Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large Performance

Curtis Faith wrote:
> > No question about that! The sooner we can get stuff to the WAL buffers,
> > the more likely we will get some other transaction to do our fsync work.
> > Any ideas on how we can do that?
>
> More like the sooner we get stuff out of the WAL buffers and into the
> disk's buffers whether by write or aio_write.

Does aio_write to write or write _and_ fsync()?

> It doesn't do any good to have information in the XLog unless it
> gets written to the disk buffers before they empty.

Just for clarification, we have two issues in this thread:

WAL memory buffers fill up, forcing WAL write
multiple commits at the same time force too many fsync's

I just wanted to throw that out.

> > I can't tell you how many aio/mmap/fancy feature discussions we have
> > had, and we obviously discuss them, but in the end, they end up being of
> > questionable value for the risk/complexity; but, we keep talking,
> > hoping we are wrong or some good ideas come out of it.
>
> I'm all in favor of keeping clean designs. I'm very pleased with how
> easy PostreSQL is to read and understand given how much it does.

Glad you see the situation we are in. ;-)

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073