On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 01:00:08PM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-01-22 11:43:20 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> What is the purpose of syncing the file before the rename?
>
> It's from the general durable_rename() code. The reason it's there that it's
> required for "atomically replace a f
Hi,
On 2025-01-22 11:43:20 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 11:21:03AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> > fsync(open(oldname1));
> > fsync(open(oldname2));
> > ..
> > fsync(open(oldnameN));
> >
> > rename(oldname1, newname1);
> > rename(oldname2, newname2);
> > ..
> > rename(old
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 11:21:03AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> fsync(open(oldname1));
> fsync(open(oldname2));
> ..
> fsync(open(oldnameN));
>
> rename(oldname1, newname1);
> rename(oldname2, newname2);
> ..
> rename(oldnameN, newnameN);
>
> fsync(open(newname1));
> fsync(open(newname2));
> ..
Hi,
On 2025-01-22 01:14:22 +, Andy Fan wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > FWIW, I've seen the fsyncs around recycling being a rather substantial
> > bottleneck. To the point of the main benefit of larger segments being the
> > reduction in number of fsyncs at the end of a checkpoint. I think
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 01:14:22AM +, Andy Fan wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
>> FWIW, I've seen the fsyncs around recycling being a rather substantial
>> bottleneck. To the point of the main benefit of larger segments being the
>> reduction in number of fsyncs at the end of a checkpoint. I t
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 11:23:06AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-01-21 10:13:14 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 09:52:51AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 03:31:27AM +, Andy Fan wrote:
>> >> 3. Why is the purpose of preallocated_segments
Andres Freund writes:
Hi,
> FWIW, I've seen the fsyncs around recycling being a rather substantial
> bottleneck. To the point of the main benefit of larger segments being the
> reduction in number of fsyncs at the end of a checkpoint. I think we should
> be able to make the fsyncs a lot more ef
Hi,
On 2025-01-21 10:13:14 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 09:52:51AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 03:31:27AM +, Andy Fan wrote:
> >> 3. Why is the purpose of preallocated_segments directory? what in my
> >> mind is we just prellocate the norm
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 09:52:51AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 03:31:27AM +, Andy Fan wrote:
>> 3. Why is the purpose of preallocated_segments directory? what in my
>> mind is we just prellocate the normal filename so that XLogWrite could
>> open it directly. This is
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 03:31:27AM +, Andy Fan wrote:
> Come from [0] and thanks for working on this. Here are some design
> review/question after my first going through the patch.
Thanks for taking a look.
> 1. walwriter vs checkpointer? I prefer to walwriter for now because..
>
> a. chec
Hi Nathan,
Come from [0] and thanks for working on this. Here are some design
review/question after my first going through the patch.
1. walwriter vs checkpointer? I prefer to walwriter for now because..
a. checkpointer is hard to do it in a timely manner either because
checkpoint itself may
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 11:34:07AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> It's now been over a year since I first posted a patch in this thread, and
> I still sense very little interest for this feature. I intend to mark it
> as Withdrawn at the end of this commitfest.
Done.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon We
On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 01:30:03PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 04:12:12PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> It seems unlikely that this will be committed for v15, so I've adjusted the
>> commitfest entry to v16 and moved it to the next commitfest.
>
> rebased
It's now bee
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 04:12:12PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> It seems unlikely that this will be committed for v15, so I've adjusted the
> commitfest entry to v16 and moved it to the next commitfest.
rebased
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
>From 3781795f9b4e448
It seems unlikely that this will be committed for v15, so I've adjusted the
commitfest entry to v16 and moved it to the next commitfest.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 08:40:44AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> FYI: this is currently failing in cfbot on linux.
>
> https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4934371210690560
> https://api.cirrus-ci.com/v1/artifact/task/4934371210690560/log/src/test/regress/regression.diffs
>
> DROP TABLESPACE regress_tblsp
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 02:51:10PM +0300, Maxim Orlov wrote:
> I did check the patch too and found it to be ok. Check and check-world are
> passed.
FYI: this is currently failing in cfbot on linux.
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4934371210690560
https://api.cirrus-ci.com/v1/artifact/task/493437121069
On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 1:36 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 3:39 AM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> >
> > On 12/30/21, 3:52 AM, "Maxim Orlov" wrote:
> > > I did check the patch too and found it to be ok. Check and check-world
> > > are passed.
> > > Overall idea seems to be goo
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 3:39 AM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
> On 12/30/21, 3:52 AM, "Maxim Orlov" wrote:
> > I did check the patch too and found it to be ok. Check and check-world are
> > passed.
> > Overall idea seems to be good in my opinion, but I'm not sure where is the
> > optimal place to put
On 12/30/21, 3:52 AM, "Maxim Orlov" wrote:
> I did check the patch too and found it to be ok. Check and check-world are
> passed.
> Overall idea seems to be good in my opinion, but I'm not sure where is the
> optimal place to put the pre-allocation.
>
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 2:46 PM Pavel Bor
I did check the patch too and found it to be ok. Check and check-world are
passed.
Overall idea seems to be good in my opinion, but I'm not sure where is the
optimal place to put the pre-allocation.
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 2:46 PM Pavel Borisov
wrote:
> > pre-allocating during checkpoints. I've
>
> > pre-allocating during checkpoints. I've done a few pgbench runs, and
> > it seems to work pretty well. Initialization is around 15% faster,
> > and I'm seeing about a 5% increase in TPS with a simple-update
> > workload with wal_recycle turned off. Of course, these improvements
> > go away
On 12/7/21, 9:35 AM, "Bossart, Nathan" wrote:
> On 12/7/21, 12:29 AM, "Bharath Rupireddy"
> wrote:
>> Why can't the walwriter pre-allocate some of the WAL segments instead
>> of a new background process? Of course, it might delay the main
>> functionality of the walwriter i.e. flush and sync the
On 12/7/21, 12:29 AM, "Bharath Rupireddy"
wrote:
> Why can't the walwriter pre-allocate some of the WAL segments instead
> of a new background process? Of course, it might delay the main
> functionality of the walwriter i.e. flush and sync the WAL files, but
> having checkpointer do the pre-alloc
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 12:29 AM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
> On 10/8/21, 1:55 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" wrote:
> > Here is a first attempt at adding the pre-allocation logic to the
> > checkpointer. I went ahead and just used CheckpointWriteDelay() for
> > pre-allocating during checkpoints. I've don
On 10/6/21, 5:20 AM, "Maxim Orlov" wrote:
> We've looked through the code and everything looks good except few minor
> things:
> 1). Using dedicated bg worker seems not optimal, it introduces a lot of
> redundant code for little single action.
> We'd join initial proposal of Andres to implem
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, failed
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
Hi!
We've looked through the code and everything looks good except f
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 8:48 PM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
> On 12/25/20, 12:09 PM, "Andres Freund" wrote:
> > When running write heavy transactional workloads I've many times
> > observed that one needs to run the benchmarks for quite a while till
> > they get to their steady state performance. The
28 matches
Mail list logo
