From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: max_wal_senders must die |
Date: | 2010-10-20 22:17:31 |
Message-ID: | 4CBF6A7B.9060103@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Quite. Josh, have you got any evidence showing that the penalty is
> only 10%? There are cases, such as COPY and ALTER TABLE, where
> you'd be looking at 2X or worse penalties, because of the existing
> optimizations that avoid writing WAL at all for operations where a
> single final fsync can serve the purpose. I'm not sure what the
> penalty for "typical" workloads is, partly because I'm not sure what
> should be considered a "typical" workload for this purpose.
If we could agree on some workloads, I could run some benchmarks. I'm
not sure what those would be though, given that COPY and ALTER TABLE
aren't generally included in most benchmarks. I could see how
everything else is effected, though.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-20 22:33:00 | Re: pg_rawdump |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-20 22:15:43 | Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies |