| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WALInsertLock contention |
| Date: | 2011-06-09 03:27:57 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTini_6-YoOy+hzWdkCfRifEsqG5R7A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> You're probably right. I think though there is enough hypothetical
> upside to the private buffer case that it should be attempted just to
> see what breaks. The major tricky bit is dealing with the new
> pin/unpin mechanics. I'd like to give it the 'college try'. (being
> typically vain and attention seeking, this is right up my alley) :-D.
Well, I think it's fairly clear what will break:
- If you make the data-file buffer completely private, then what will
happen when some other backend needs to read or write that buffer?
- If you make the XLOG spool private, you will not be able to checkpoint.
But I just work here. Feel free to hit your head on that brick wall
all you like. If you manage to make a hole (in the wall, not your
head), I'll be as happy as anyone to climb through...!
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-06-09 03:40:01 | Re: SSI work for 9.1 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-09 03:24:34 | literature on write-ahead logging |