Horton

Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-03-30T23:11:02Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net> writes:
> On 03/30/18 16:21, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I did not like the proposed test case too much, particularly not its
>> undocumented API change for check_pg_config,

> Other than that API change, was there something the test case could have
> done differently to make you like it more?

Well, if that'd been properly documented I'd probably have pushed it
without complaint.  But I did wonder whether it could've been folded
into one of the existing tests of pg_switch_wal().  This doesn't seem
like a property worth spending a lot of cycles on testing.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Ensure that WAL pages skipped by a forced WAL switch are zero-filled.

  2. Improve scalability of WAL insertions.

  3. Move BKP_REMOVABLE bit from individual WAL records to WAL page headers.