Re: An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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