Re: measuring lwlock-related latency spikes
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: measuring lwlock-related latency spikes |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 10670.1333393454@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: measuring lwlock-related latency spikes (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: measuring lwlock-related latency spikes
Re: measuring lwlock-related latency spikes Re: measuring lwlock-related latency spikes |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Long story short, when a CLOG-related stall happens,
> essentially all the time is being spent in this here section of code:
> /*
> * If not part of Flush, need to fsync now. We assume this happens
> * infrequently enough that it's not a performance issue.
> */
> if (!fdata) // fsync and close the file
Seems like basically what you've proven is that this code path *is* a
performance issue, and that we need to think a bit harder about how to
avoid doing the fsync while holding locks.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: