Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Jerry Jelinek <jerry(dot)jelinek(at)joyent(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling
Date: 2018-07-17 19:12:12
Message-ID: 885251ae-05aa-676e-d229-9495a8278468@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 17.07.18 00:04, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
> There have been quite a few comments since last week, so at this point I
> am uncertain how to proceed with this change. I don't think I saw
> anything concrete in the recent emails that I can act upon.

The outcome of this could be multiple orthogonal patches that affect the
WAL file allocation behavior somehow. I think your original idea of
skipping recycling on a COW file system is sound. But I would rather
frame the option as "preallocating files is obviously useless on a COW
file system" rather than "this will make things mysteriously faster with
uncertain trade-offs".

The actual implementation could use another round of consideration. I
wonder how this should interact with min_wal_size. Wouldn't
min_wal_size = 0 already do what we need (if you could set it to 0,
which is currently not possible)? Should the new setting be something
like min_wal_size = -1? Or even if it's a new setting, it might be
better to act on it in XLOGfileslop(), so these things are kept closer
together.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2018-07-17 19:21:27 Re: Making all nbtree entries unique by having heap TIDs participate in comparisons
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-07-17 19:02:32 Re: Another usability issue with our TAP tests