From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ThisTimeLineID in checkpointer and bgwriter processes |
Date: | 2012-12-20 16:52:21 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJexRwi=3ddFVUAxZ8iCQpE59MX41G2wxcFaKkBzDt5ig@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 20 December 2012 16:21, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> PreallocXlogFiles() should have been put to the sword long ago. It's a
>> performance tweak aimed at people without a performance problem in
>> this area.
>
> This claim seems remarkably lacking in any supporting evidence.
>
> I'll freely grant that PreallocXlogFiles could stand to be improved
> (by which I mean made more aggressive, ie willing to create files more
> often and/or further in advance). I don't see how it follows that it's
> okay to remove the functionality altogether. To the extent that we can
> make that activity happen in checkpointer rather than in foreground
> processes, it's surely a good thing.
"More aggressive" implies it is currently in some way aggressive.
Removing it will make as little difference as keeping it, so let it stay.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2012-12-20 16:53:59 | Re: ThisTimeLineID in checkpointer and bgwriter processes |
Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2012-12-20 16:49:30 | Re: Set visibility map bit after HOT prune |