From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: CREATE DATABASE vs. (partial) CHECKPOINT |
Date: | 2014-10-30 18:56:43 |
Message-ID: | 20141030185643.GA28295@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-10-30 14:51:54 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> wrote:
> >> I would tend not to worry too much about this case. I'm skeptical
> >> that there are a lot of people using large template databases. But
> >> if there are, or if some particular one of those people hits this
> >> problem, then they can raise checkpoint_segments to avoid it. The
> >> reverse problem, which you are encountering, cannot be fixed by
> >> adjusting settings.
> >
> > That however solves "only" the checkpoint, not the double amount of I/O
> > due to writing both the files and WAL, no? But maybe that's OK.
>
> I mean, it's not unimaginable that it's going to hurt somebody, but
> the current situation is pretty bad too. You don't have to be the
> world's foremost PostgreSQL performance expert to know that extra
> checkpoints are really bad for performance. Write volume is of course
> also a problem, but I bet there are a lot more people using small
> template databases (where the write volume isn't really an issue,
> because as Heikki points out the checkpoint wastes half a segment
> anyway, but the checkpoint may very well be a issue) than large ones
> (where either could be an issue).
Agreed. The current behaviour is a pretty ugly that just failed to fail
recently. I actually think we should *always* use the new code and not
add a separate wal_level=minimal branch. Maintaining this twice just
isn't worth the effort. minimal is used *far* less these days.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-10-30 19:02:56 | Re: Faster relevance ranking didn't make it into PostgreSQL 9.4 |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-10-30 18:51:54 | Re: proposal: CREATE DATABASE vs. (partial) CHECKPOINT |