Re: An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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