Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements
Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
From: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>,
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2023-05-09T04:04:56Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 9:27 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 09:24:14AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > > I'll pick a test case that generates a reasonable amount of WAL 256 > > bytes. What do you think of the following? > > > > test-case 2: -T900, WAL ~256 bytes (for c in 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 > > 512 768 1024 2048 4096 - takes 3.5hrs) > > test-case 2: -t1000000, WAL ~256 bytes > > > > If okay, I'll fire the tests. > > Sounds like a sensible duration, yes. What's your setting for > min/max_wal_size? I assume that there are still 16GB throttled with > target_completion at 0.9? Below is the configuration I've been using. I have been keeping the checkpoints away so far to get expected numbers. Probably, something that I should modify for this long run? Change checkpoint_timeout to 15 min or so? max_wal_size=64GB checkpoint_timeout=1d shared_buffers=8GB max_connections=5000 -- Bharath Rupireddy PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Commits
-
Optimize pg_atomic_exchange_u32 and pg_atomic_exchange_u64.
- 64b1fb5f0326 17.0 cited
-
Document more assumptions of LWLock variable changes with WAL inserts
- 66d86d4201b3 17.0 landed
-
Optimize WAL insertion lock acquisition and release with some atomics
- 71e4cc6b8ec6 17.0 landed
-
Avoid the use of a separate spinlock to protect a LWLock's wait queue.
- 008608b9d510 9.6.0 cited