Re: postgresql latency & bgwriter not doing its job

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: postgresql latency & bgwriter not doing its job
Date: 2014-08-27 13:20:45
Message-ID: 20140827132045.GI21544@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-08-27 10:17:06 -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
> > I think a somewhat smarter version of the explicit flushes in the
> > hack^Wpatch I posted nearby is going to more likely to be successful.
>
>
> That path is "dangerous" (as in, may not work as intended) if the
> filesystem doesn't properly understand range flushes (ehem, like
> ext3).

The sync_file_range(SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE) I used isn't a operation
guaranteeing durability. And - afaik - not implemented in a file system
specific manner. It just initiates writeback for individual pages. It
doesn't cause barrier, journal flushes or anything to be issued. That's
still done by the fsync() later.

The big disadvantage is that it's a OS specific solution, but I don't
think we're going to find anything that isn't in this area.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2014-08-27 13:34:35 Re: Set new system identifier using pg_resetxlog
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2014-08-27 13:19:55 Re: Code bug or doc bug?