Re: Excessive WAL generation and related performance issue

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Hackers (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Excessive WAL generation and related performance issue
Date: 2014-04-15 21:13:10
Message-ID: 3933.1397596390@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> In other words, based on my inserted logic, it appears that there are
> 5 and 6 backup blocks on a fairly regular basis.

> However in xlog.h it says:
> 8<--------------------------
> * If we backed up any disk blocks with the XLOG record, we use flag
> * bits in xl_info to signal it. We support backup of up to 4 disk
> * blocks per XLOG record.
> 8<--------------------------

> So is my logic to record number of backup blocks wrong, or is the
> comment wrong, or am I otherwise misunderstanding something?

The comment is correct, so you did something wrong. From memory,
there's a goto-label retry loop in that function; maybe you need
to zero your counters after the retry label?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2014-04-15 21:15:37 Re: Excessive WAL generation and related performance issue
Previous Message Joe Conway 2014-04-15 20:53:29 Re: Excessive WAL generation and related performance issue