From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | jasrajd <jasrajd(at)microsoft(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention |
Date: | 2017-06-22 01:16:46 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQQn1LikOd-YKUo80LgXRDr2U8R0FURe3Fu5xyNpmSt8Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 4:57 PM, jasrajd <jasrajd(at)microsoft(dot)com> wrote:
> We are also seeing contention on the walwritelock and repeated writes to the
> same offset if we move the flush outside the lock in the Azure environment.
> pgbench doesn't scale beyond ~8 cores without saturating the IOPs or
> bandwidth. Is there more work being done in this area?
As of now, there is no patch in the development queue for Postgres 11
that is dedicated to this particularly lock contention. There is a
patch for LWlocks in general with power PC, but that's all:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/984/
Not sure if Kuntal has plans to submit again this patch. It is
actually a bit sad to not see things moving on and use an approach to
group flushes.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2017-06-22 01:18:41 | Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-06-22 01:07:21 | Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq |