| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Ritu Bhandari <mailritubhandari(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Purpose of wal_init_zero |
| Date: | 2025-01-20 17:02:56 |
| Message-ID: | Z46BwCNAEjLyW85Z@nathan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 04:29:14PM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think what we instead ought to do is to more aggressively initialize WAL
> files ahead of time, so it doesn't happen while holding crucial locks. We
> know the recent rate of WAL generation, and we could easily track up to which
> LSN we have recycled WAL segments. Armed with that information walwriter (or
> something else) should try to ensure that there's always a fair amount of
> pre-allocated WAL.
I put some patches together for this a few years ago [0], but ended up
abandoning them due to lack of interest. I'm happy to revisit that effort
if folks do become interested.
[0] https://postgr.es/m/20220408203003.GA1630183%40nathanxps13
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sami Imseih | 2025-01-20 17:04:40 | Re: POC: track vacuum/analyze cumulative time per relation |
| Previous Message | Amul Sul | 2025-01-20 16:53:14 | Re: NOT ENFORCED constraint feature |