On Nov 7, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> >>>> 5. Make the WAL writer more responsive, maybe using latches, so that >>>> it doesn't take as long for the commit record to make it out to disk. >>> >>> I'm working on this already as part of the update for power >>> reduction/group commit/replication performance. >> >> I extracted this from my current patch for you to test. > > Thank you! > >> Rather useful actually 'cos its allowed me a sensible phasing of the >> development. > > +1. > > <reads patch> > > Hmm, this is different than what I was expecting, although that's not > necessarily bad. What this does is retain wal_writer_delay, but allow > the WAL writer to be woken up more frequently if there's enough WAL to > justify it. What I was expecting you to do is eliminate > wal_writer_delay altogether and drive the wakeups entirely off of the > latch.
Oh, I think I see why you didn't do that... Anyway, I'll try to post test results in the morning. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
