| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers |
| Date: | 2010-06-11 14:47:39 |
| Message-ID: | 7494.1276267659@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
> hmm not sure that is what fujii tried to say - I think his point was
> that in the original case we would have serialized all the operations
> (first write+sync on the master, network afterwards and write+sync on
> the slave) and now we could try parallelizing by sending the wal before
> we have synced locally.
Well, we're already not waiting for fsync, which is the slowest part.
If there's a performance problem, it may be because FADVISE_DONTNEED
disables kernel buffering so that we're forced to actually read the data
back from disk before sending it on down the wire.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-11 14:57:42 | Re: hstore ==> and deprecate => |
| Previous Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2010-06-11 14:38:26 | Re: Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers |