Horton

Re: Improve WALRead() to suck data directly from WAL buffers when possible

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

View thread
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2023-01-14T20:34:03Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Add XLogCtl->logInsertResult

  2. Add assert to WALReadFromBuffers().

  3. Read WAL directly from WAL buffers.

  4. Additional write barrier in AdvanceXLInsertBuffer().

  5. Use 64-bit atomics for xlblocks array elements.

  6. Don't trust unvalidated xl_tot_len.

Hi,

On 2023-01-14 00:48:52 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-12-26 at 14:20 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > Please review the attached v2 patch further.
> 
> I'm still unclear on the performance goals of this patch. I see that it
> will reduce syscalls, which sounds good, but to what end?
> 
> Does it allow a greater number of walsenders? Lower replication
> latency? Less IO bandwidth? All of the above?

One benefit would be that it'd make it more realistic to use direct IO for WAL
- for which I have seen significant performance benefits. But when we
afterwards have to re-read it from disk to replicate, it's less clearly a win.

Greetings,

Andres Freund