| From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Maxim Orlov <m(dot)orlov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Pre-allocating WAL files |
| Date: | 2022-01-05 22:08:49 |
| Message-ID: | DF1A2298-6367-4B6E-A0BE-00E7B09489D4@amazon.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/30/21, 3:52 AM, "Maxim Orlov" <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I did check the patch too and found it to be ok. Check and check-world are passed.
> Overall idea seems to be good in my opinion, but I'm not sure where is the optimal place to put the pre-allocation.
>
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 2:46 PM Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I've checked the patch v7. It applies cleanly, code is good, check-world tests passed without problems.
>> I think it's ok to use checkpointer for this and the overall patch can be committed. But the seen performance gain makes me think again before adding this feature. I did tests myself a couple of months ago and got similar results.
>> Really don't know whether is it worth the effort.
Thank you both for your review.
Nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-01-05 22:11:54 | Bugs in pgoutput.c |
| Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2022-01-05 22:03:23 | Re: SQL:2011 application time |