| From: | Sokolov Yura <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | jasrajd <jasrajd(at)microsoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention |
| Date: | 2017-06-22 08:42:43 |
| Message-ID: | 461993bf293929fd1a95afcac89f177c@postgrespro.ru |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-06-22 04:16, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 4:57 PM, jasrajd <jasrajd(at)microsoft(dot)com> wrote:
>> We are also seeing contention on the walwritelock and repeated writes
>> to the
>> same offset if we move the flush outside the lock in the Azure
>> environment.
>> pgbench doesn't scale beyond ~8 cores without saturating the IOPs or
>> bandwidth. Is there more work being done in this area?
>
> As of now, there is no patch in the development queue for Postgres 11
> that is dedicated to this particularly lock contention. There is a
> patch for LWlocks in general with power PC, but that's all:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/984/
>
> Not sure if Kuntal has plans to submit again this patch. It is
> actually a bit sad to not see things moving on and use an approach to
> group flushes.
> --
> Michael
There is also patch against LWLock degradation on NUMA :
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/1166/
But they are both about LWLock itself, and not its usage.
--
Sokolov Yura
Postgres Professional: https://postgrespro.ru
The Russian Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-06-22 08:44:53 | Re: Incorrect documentation about pg_stat_activity |
| Previous Message | Kang Yuzhe | 2017-06-22 08:30:09 | Re: SQL MERGE patches for PostgreSQL Versions |