On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >>> 5. Make the WAL writer more responsive, maybe using latches, so that >>> it doesn't take as long for the commit record to make it out to disk. >> >> I'm working on this already as part of the update for power >> reduction/group commit/replication performance. > > I extracted this from my current patch for you to test.
Thank you! > Rather useful actually 'cos its allowed me a sensible phasing of the > development. +1. <reads patch> Hmm, this is different than what I was expecting, although that's not necessarily bad. What this does is retain wal_writer_delay, but allow the WAL writer to be woken up more frequently if there's enough WAL to justify it. What I was expecting you to do is eliminate wal_writer_delay altogether and drive the wakeups entirely off of the latch. I think you could get away with that, because SetLatch is ridiculously cheap if the latch is already set. Anyway, I'll give this a spin as you have it and see what falls out. -- 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
