On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You could do that, but first I would code up the simplest, cleanest
>>> algorithm you can think of and see if it even shows up in a 'perf'
>>> profile.  Microbenchmarking is probably overkill here unless a problem
>>> is visible on macrobenchmarks.
>> This is what I would go for! The current code is doing a simple thing:
>> select the Nth element using qsort() after scanning each WAL sender's
>> values. And I think that Sawada-san got it right. Even running on my
>> laptop a pgbench run with 10 sync standbys using a data set that fits
>> into memory, SyncRepGetOldestSyncRecPtr gets at most 0.04% of overhead
>> using perf top on a non-assert, non-debug build. Hash tables and
>> allocations get a far larger share. Using the patch,
>> SyncRepGetSyncRecPtr is at the same level with a quorum set of 10
>> nodes. Let's kick the ball for now. An extra patch could make things
>> better later on if that's worth it.
> Yeah, since the both K and N could be not large these algorithm takes
> almost the same time. And current patch does simple thing. When we
> need over 100 or 1000 replication node the optimization could be
> required.
> Attached latest v9 patch.

Few comments:

+ * In 10.0 we support two synchronization methods, priority and
+ * quorum. The number of synchronous standbys that transactions
+ * must wait for replies from and synchronization method are specified
+ * in synchronous_standby_names. This parameter also specifies a list
+ * of standby names, which determines the priority of each standby for
+ * being chosen as a synchronous standby. In priority method, the standbys
+ * whose names appear earlier in the list are given higher priority
+ * and will be considered as synchronous. Other standby servers appearing
+ * later in this list represent potential synchronous standbys. If any of
+ * the current synchronous standbys disconnects for whatever reason,
+ * it will be replaced immediately with the next-highest-priority standby.
+ * In quorum method, the all standbys appearing in the list are
+ * considered as a candidate for quorum commit.

In the above description, is priority method represented by FIRST and
quorum method by ANY in the synchronous_standby_names syntax?  If so,
it might be better to write about it explicitly.

 --- a/src/backend/utils/sort/tuplesort.c
+++ b/src/backend/utils/sort/tuplesort.c
@@ -2637,16 +2637,8 @@ mergeruns(Tuplesortstate *state)

- * Allocate a new 'memtuples' array, for the heap.  It will hold one tuple
- * from each input tape.
- */
- state->memtupsize = numInputTapes;
- state->memtuples = (SortTuple *) palloc(numInputTapes * sizeof(SortTuple));
- USEMEM(state, GetMemoryChunkSpace(state->memtuples));
- /*
- * Use all the remaining memory we have available for read buffers among
- * the input tapes.
+ * Use all the spare memory we have available for read buffers among the
+ * input tapes.

This doesn't belong to this patch.

+ * Return the list of sync standbys using according to synchronous method,

In above sentence, "using according" seems to either incomplete or wrong usage.

+ else
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ "invalid synchronization method is specified \"%d\"",
+ SyncRepConfig->sync_method));

Here, the error message doesn't seem to aligned and you might want to
use errmsg for the same.

+ * In priority method, we need the oldest these positions among sync
+ * standbys. In quorum method, we need the newest these positions
+ * specified by SyncRepConfig->num_sync.

/oldest these/oldest of these
/newest these positions specified/newest of these positions as specified

Instead of newest, can we consider to use latest?

+ int sync_method; /* synchronization method */
  /* member_names contains nmembers consecutive nul-terminated C strings */
  char member_names[FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER];
 } SyncRepConfigData;

Can't we use 1 or 2 bytes to store sync_method information?

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to