Hello Pierre,
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 5:43 PM Pierre Ducroquet <p.psql@pinaraf.info> wrote:
>
> The second one was tested on PG 10 and PG 12 (with 48 lines offset). It has on
> PG12 the same effect it has on a PG10+isAlive patch. Instead of calling each
> time GetFlushRecPtr, we call it only if we notice we have reached the value of
> the previous call. This way, when the senders are busy decoding, we are no
> longer fighting for a spinlock to read the FlushRecPtr.
The patch is quite straightforward and looks good to me.
- XLogRecPtr flushPtr;
+ static XLogRecPtr flushPtr = 0;
You should use InvalidXLogRecPtr instead though, and maybe adding some
comments to explain why the static variable is a life changer here.
> Here are some benchmark results.
> On PG 10, to decode our replication stream, we went from 3m 43s to over 5
> minutes after removing the first hot spot, and then down to 22 seconds.
> On PG 12, we had to change the benchmark (due to GIN indexes creation being
> more optimized) so we can not compare directly with our previous bench. We
> went from 15m 11s down to 59 seconds.
> If needed, we can provide scripts to reproduce this situation. It is quite
> simple: add ~20 walsenders doing logical replication in database A, and then
> generate a lot of data in database B. The walsenders will be woken up by the
> activity on database B, but not sending it thus keeping hitting the same
> locks.
Quite impressive speedup!