Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock)
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 7130.1331132659@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock) (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work
outside WALInsertLock)
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Just to keep things in perspective -- For a commit record to reach one
> megabyte, it would have to be a transaction that drops over 43k tables.
> Or have 64k smgr inval messages (for example, a TRUNCATE might send half
> a dozen of these messages). Or have 262k subtransactions. Or
> combinations thereof.
> Now admittedly, a page is only 8 kB, so for a commit record to be "many
> pages long" (that is, >=3) it would require about 1500 smgr inval
> messages, or, say, about 250 TRUNCATEs (of permanent tables with at
> least one toastable field and at least one index).
What about the locks (if running hot-standby)?
> So they are undoubtely rare. Not sure if as rare as Higgs bosons.
Even if they're rare, having a major performance hiccup when one happens
is not a side-effect I want to see from a patch whose only reason to
exist is better performance.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: