From: | Jerry Jelinek <jerry(dot)jelinek(at)joyent(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling |
Date: | 2018-07-18 19:22:59 |
Message-ID: | CACPQ5FoLYA3eTOr6aYQ1-mp2tS2Npu3fcUFddhCJ-UeiAXiw0A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I've gotten a wide variety of feedback on the proposed patch. The comments
range from rough approval through various discussion about alternative
solutions. At this point I am unsure if this patch is rejected or if it
would be accepted once I had the updated man page changes that were
discussed last week.
I have attached an updated patch which does incorporate man page changes,
in case that is the blocker. However, if this patch is simply rejected, I'd
appreciate it if I could get a definitive statement to that effect.
Thanks,
Jerry
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:35 AM, Jerry Jelinek <jerry(dot)jelinek(at)joyent(dot)com>
wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Attached is a patch to provide an option to disable WAL recycling. We have
> found that this can help performance by eliminating read-modify-write
> behavior on old WAL files that are no longer resident in the filesystem
> cache. The is a lot more detail on the background of the motivation for
> this in the following thread.
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CACukRjO7DJvub8e2AijOayj8BfKK3
> XXBTwu3KKARiTr67M3E3w%40mail.gmail.com#CACukRjO7DJvub8e2AijOayj8BfKK3
> XXBTwu3KKARiTr67M3E3w(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com
>
> A similar change has been tested against our 9.6 branch that we're
> currently running, but the attached patch is against master.
>
> Thanks,
> Jerry
>
>
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0001-option-to-disable-WAL-recycling.patch | application/octet-stream | 4.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-07-18 19:23:08 | Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-07-18 18:44:43 | Re: [PG-11] Potential bug related to INCLUDE clause of CREATE INDEX |