Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 10:00 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Maybe. I bet just bumping up the constant by 2X or 4X or so would get
>> most of the win for far less work; it's not like adding a few more
>> LWLocks is expensive. But we need some evidence about what to set it to.
> I previously made an attempt to improve WAL insertion performance with
> varying NUM_XLOGINSERT_LOCKS. IIRC, we will lose what we get by
> increasing insertion locks (reduction in WAL insertion lock
> acquisition time) to the CPU overhead of flushing the WAL in
> WaitXLogInsertionsToFinish as referred to by the following comment.
Very interesting --- this is at variance with what the OP said, so
we definitely need details about the test conditions in both cases.
> Unfortunately, I've lost the test results, I'll run them up again and
> come back.
Please.
regards, tom lane
