Horton

Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net>, 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: 2018-03-18T20:56:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
> On 18 Mar 2018, at 03:09, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 
> Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net> writes:
>> Thanks for the review. I notice that cfbot has now flagged the patch as
>> failing, and when I look into it, it appears that cfbot is building with
>> your test patch, and without the xlog.c patch, and so the test naturally
>> fails. Does the cfbot require both patches to be attached to the same
>> email, in order to include them both?
> 
> I believe so --- AFAIK it does not know anything about dependencies
> between different patches, and will just try to build whatever patch(es)
> appear in the latest email on a given thread.  Munro might be able to
> provide more detail.

Right, I should’ve realized when I didn’t include your original patch as well,
sorry about that.  Now we know that the proposed test fails without the patch
applied and clears with it, that was at least an interesting side effect =)

cheers ./daniel

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.