On January 11, 2016 10:46:01 PM GMT+01:00, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> 
>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>
>> >It's clear there are various additional tuning opportunities, but
>> >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,
>your comment is not relevant since we don't change timelines on the

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.


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:

Reply via email to