On 3 January 2017 at 21:33, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 3 January 2017 at 16:24, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 3, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3 January 2017 at 15:44, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Yeah.  I don't think there's any way to get around the fact that there
>>>>> will be bigger latency spikes in some cases with larger WAL files.
>>>> One way would be for the WALwriter to zerofill new files ahead of
>>>> time, thus avoiding the latency spike.
>>> Sure, we could do that.  I think it's an independent improvement,
>>> though: it is beneficial with or without this patch.
>> The latency spike problem is exacerbated by increasing file size, so I
>> think if we are allowing people to increase file size in this release
>> then we should fix the knock-on problem it causes in this release
>> also. If we don't fix it as part of this patch I would consider it an
>> open item.
> I think I'd like to see some benchmark results before forming an
> opinion on whether that's a must-fix issue.  I'm not sure I believe
> that allowing a larger WAL segment size is going to make things worse
> more than it makes them better.  I think that should be tested, not
> assumed true.

Strange response. Nothing has been assumed. I asked for tests and you
provided measurements.

I suggest we fix just the problem as the fastest way forwards.

Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

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

Reply via email to