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