Re: [HACKERS] An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Michael Paquier
Тема Re: [HACKERS] An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention
Дата
Msg-id CAB7nPqQQn1LikOd-YKUo80LgXRDr2U8R0FURe3Fu5xyNpmSt8Q@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention  (jasrajd <jasrajd@microsoft.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention  (Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention  (Sokolov Yura <y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 4:57 PM, jasrajd <jasrajd@microsoft.com> wrote:
> We are also seeing contention on the walwritelock and repeated writes to the
> same offset if we move the flush outside the lock in the Azure environment.
> pgbench doesn't scale beyond ~8 cores without saturating the IOPs or
> bandwidth. Is there more work being done in this area?

As of now, there is no patch in the development queue for Postgres 11
that is dedicated to this particularly lock contention. There is a
patch for LWlocks in general with power PC, but that's all:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/984/

Not sure if Kuntal has plans to submit again this patch. It is
actually a bit sad to not see things moving on and use an approach to
group flushes.
-- 
Michael



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq
Следующее
От: Craig Ringer
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq