| From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Do we need pre-allocate WAL files during end-of-recovery checkpoint? |
| Date: | 2021-12-07 08:24:44 |
| Message-ID: | CALj2ACWWGUnq1oYcTVF7NNUCFEn7Osnnza1dz789U6E8bmoqYA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 12:35 AM SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM
<satyanarlapuram(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> If the segment size is 16MB it shouldn't take much time but higher segment values this can be a problem. But again, the current segment has to be filled 75% to precreate new one. I am not sure how much we gain. Do you have some numbers with different segment sizes?
I don't have the numbers. However I agree that the pre-allocation can
make end-of-recovery checkpoint times more. At times, the
end-of-recovery checkpoint itself will take a good amount of time and
adding to it the pre-allocation of WAL time doesn't make sense.
Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2021-12-07 08:27:56 | Re: Pre-allocating WAL files |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-12-07 08:23:42 | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |