Re: Potential Large Performance Gain in WAL synching

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

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Curtis Faith" <curtis@galtair.com>
Cc: "Pgsql-Hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2002-10-04T04:50:41Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Curtis Faith" <curtis@galtair.com> writes:
> The REAL issue and the one that will greatly affect total system
> throughput is that of contention on the file locks. Since fsynch needs to
> obtain a write lock on the file descriptor, as does the write calls which
> originate from XLogWrite as the writes are written to the disk, other
> back-ends will block while another transaction is committing if the
> log cache fills to the point where their XLogInsert results in a 
> XLogWrite call to flush the log cache.

But that's exactly *why* we have a log cache: to ensure we can buffer a
reasonable amount of log data between XLogFlush calls.  If the above
scenario is really causing a problem, doesn't that just mean you need
to increase wal_buffers?

			regards, tom lane