Re: [PoC] Non-volatile WAL buffer

From: Takashi Menjo <takashi(dot)menjo(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Takashi Menjo <takashi(dot)menjou(dot)vg(at)hco(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Deng, Gang" <gang(dot)deng(at)intel(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PoC] Non-volatile WAL buffer
Date: 2021-03-01 01:30:00
Message-ID: CAOwnP3OHhMtJdga4GULi+2nFrS8cD0UPPgLdnbKBZiDqRdZqPw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Sawada,

I am relieved to hear that the performance problem was solved.

And I added a tip about PMEM namespace and partitioning in PG wiki[1].

Regards,

[1] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Persistent_Memory_for_WAL#Configure_and_verify_DAX_hugepage_faults

--
Takashi Menjo <takashi(dot)menjo(at)gmail(dot)com>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ajin Cherian 2021-03-01 01:53:17 Re: repeated decoding of prepared transactions
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2021-03-01 01:29:14 Re: Optimising latch signals