From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [BUG]: the walsender does not update its IO statistics until it exits |
Date: | 2025-02-28 08:44:20 |
Message-ID: | Z8F3ZH0kLeYz4yg7@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 02:41:34PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> With smaller records, the loop can become hotter, can't it? Also,
> there can be a high number of WAL senders on a single node, and I've
> heard of some customers with complex logical decoding deployments with
> dozens of logical WAL senders. Isn't there a risk of having this code
> path become a point of contention? It seems to me that we should
> benchmark this change more carefully, perhaps even reduce the
> frequency of the report calls.
One idea here would be to have on a single host one server with a set
of N pg_receivewal processes dumping their WAL segments into a tmpfs,
while a single session generates a bunch of records with a minimal
size using pg_logical_emit_message(). Monitoring the maximum
replication lag with pg_stat_replication and looking at some perf
profiles of the cluster should show how these stats reports affect the
replication setup efficiency.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Maxim Orlov | 2025-02-28 08:55:45 | Re: Proposal: Limitations of palloc inside checkpointer |
Previous Message | Benoit Lobréau | 2025-02-28 08:28:13 | Re: long-standing data loss bug in initial sync of logical replication |