Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Paul van den Bogaard (Sun) suggested to me that we could use more than
> two WAL locks to improve concurrency.
After looking over the code I'm unconvinced that there's much win to be
bought this way. I had been thinking you could push a material amount
of CRC-calculation work out of the locked code section, but that's not
so; only the WAL record header remains to be CRC'd when we enter the
locked section. The locked section is not doing much more than copying
the data into the WAL buffers, which for the normal case of short WAL
records (no page images) isn't going to take long. It's not clear that
the extra lock acquisition will be repaid by better concurrency (and
it's certain to be a dead loss if there's not concurrent writes
happening).
In a situation where you're forced to write dirty buffers to make room,
there could be some win from fixing things to not hold WALInsertLock
while you do that, but AFAICT the proposal as it stands doesn't help
on that front. Also, now that we have the wal writer process, this
case really shouldn't occur often enough to be a material performance
problem (especially not if the number of wal buffers has been kicked
up a bit).
> This requires us to get 2 locks for an XLogInsert rather than just one.
> However the second lock is always acquired with zero-wait time when the
> wal_buffers are sensibly sized.
In my experience, the fact that you won't block is not a guarantee that
lock acquisition is cheap. Trading ownership of locked cache lines back
and forth between multiple CPUs is *expensive*.
So this may be worth trying but I'm unconvinced that it'll really
provide a win that's worth the added complexity.
[ still staring at the code ... ] Something that might be interesting
though is to try to move some of the buffer control logic overhead out
of WALInsertLock's domain and into WALWriteLock's domain. Right now we
prep the page header and so forth for a new page when we are ready to
start inserting into it, which means that that work is done inside the
concurrency bottleneck. What if, as soon as we have written a filled
WAL buffer for the last time, the *writer* process is responsible for
re-initializing that buffer as empty and ready to write into for
whatever page number it's ultimately going to have (which we can
certainly determine since the number of wal buffers is known)?
Getting that page-zeroing MemSet out of the WALInsertLock domain looks
worth doing...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
