Hi, On January 11, 2016 10:46:01 PM GMT+01:00, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >On 11 January 2016 at 20:10, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > >> On January 11, 2016 8:57:58 PM GMT+01:00, Simon Riggs >> <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> >On 11 January 2016 at 18:43, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> >wrote: >> >> >It's clear there are various additional tuning opportunities, but >the >> >objective of the current patch to improve performance is very, very >> >clearly >> >met, so I'm aiming to commit *this* patch soon. >> >> Again, the WAL read routine used doesn't deal with timeline changes. > > >Not relevant: The direct WAL read routine is never used during replay, >so >your comment is not relevant since we don't change timelines on the >master.
Hm, OK. But, isn't this actually a bad sign? Currently recovery of 2pc often already is a bigger bottleneck than the workload on the master, because replay has to execute the fsyncs implied by statefile re-creation serially, whereas on the master they'll usually be executed in parallel. So, if I understand correctly this patch would widen that gap? Anyway, as evidenced here, review on a phone isn't efficient, and that's all i have access to right now. Please wait till at least tomorrow evening, so I can have a meaningful look. Andres --- Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
