Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements

Hi,

On 2023-07-25 16:43:16 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 01:08:49PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > Yes, it looks safe to me too.
>
> 0001 has been now applied. I have done more tests while looking at
> this patch since yesterday and was surprised to see higher TPS numbers
> on HEAD with the same tests as previously, and the patch was still
> shining with more than 256 clients.
>
> > FWIW, 0001 essentially implements what
> > an existing TODO comment introduced by commit 008608b9d5106 says:
>
> We really need to do something in terms of documentation with
> something like 0002, so I'll try to look at that next. Regarding
> 0003, I don't know. I think that we'd better look more into cases
> where it shows actual benefits for specific workloads (like workloads
> with a fixed rate of read and/or write operations?).

FWIW, I'm working on a patch that replaces WAL insert locks as a whole,
because they don't scale all that well. If there's no very clear improvements,
I'm not sure it's worth putting too much effort into polishing them all that
much.

Greetings,

Andres Freund