On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> In January of 2011 Robert committed 7f242d880b5b5d9642675517466d31373961cf98 >> to try and compact the fsync queue when clients find it full. There's no >> visible behavior change, just a substantial performance boost possible in >> the rare but extremely bad situations where the background writer stops >> doing fsync absorption. I've been running that in production at multiple >> locations since practically the day it hit this mailing list, with backports >> all the way to 8.3 being common (and straightforward to construct). I've >> never seen a hint of a problem with this new code. > > I've been in favor of back-porting this for a while, so you'll get no > argument from me. > > Anyone disagree?
Hearing no disagreement, I went ahead and did this. I didn't take Greg Smith's suggestion of adding a log message when/if the fsync compaction logic fails to make any headway, because (1) the proposed message didn't follow message style guidelines and I couldn't think of a better one that did and (2) I'm not sure it's worth creating extra translation work in the back-branches for such a marginal case. We can revisit this if people feel strongly about it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
