From: "Andres Freund" <and...@2ndquadrant.com>
On 2014-02-18 00:43:54 +0900, MauMau wrote:
I'm worried about the big increase in max latency. Do you know the
More frequent checkpoints caused by increased WAL volume thanks to
I don't see much evidence of increased latency there? You can't really
compare the latency when the throughput is significantly different.
For example, please see the max latencies of test set 2 (PG 9.3) and test
set 4 (xlog scaling with padding). They are 207.359 and 1219.422
respectively. The throughput is of course greatly improved, but I think the
response time should not be sacrificed as much as possible. There are some
users who are sensitive to max latency, such as stock exchange and online
Although I'm not sure this is related to what I'm asking, the following
fragment in WALInsertSlotAcquireOne() catched my eyes. Shouldn't the if
condition be "slotno == -1" instead of "!="? I thought this part wants
make inserters to use another slot on the next insertion, when they fail
acquire the slot immediately. Inserters pass slotno == -1. I'm sorry if
misunderstood the code.
I think you're right.
Thanks for your confirmation. I'd be glad if the fix could bring any
positive impact on max latency.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: