Horton
Menu

Re: Backport of fsync queue compaction

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-06-19T21:39:46Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> In January of 2011 Robert committed 7f242d880b5b5d9642675517466d31373961cf98
> to try and compact the fsync queue when clients find it full.  There's no
> visible behavior change, just a substantial performance boost possible in
> the rare but extremely bad situations where the background writer stops
> doing fsync absorption.  I've been running that in production at multiple
> locations since practically the day it hit this mailing list, with backports
> all the way to 8.3 being common (and straightforward to construct).  I've
> never seen a hint of a problem with this new code.

I've been in favor of back-porting this for a while, so you'll get no
argument from me.

Anyone disagree?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Commits

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

  1. Try to avoid running with a full fsync request queue.