pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Cc: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Cc: Jakub Wartak <Jakub.Wartak@tomtom.com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:24:43 -0400
Message-ID: <2949950.1619655883@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210429001224.cdkef4ybkw7gramv@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <773932.1619022622@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<b971373e-5f05-e691-d83c-c72a4f67167b@enterprisedb.com>
	<CA+hUKGJKDibdw5HzOdgh+tFsA7=wwJ3O6p+qYwbgAD_xkLWA3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOuzzgrn7iKnFRsB4MHp3UisEQAGgZMbk_ViTN4HV4-Ksq8zCg@mail.gmail.com>
	<892344.1619054465@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+hUKGJKKh8TbA+6977zK5TKUSsTspBHsr0s4S42q7ynkxcPGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20210428163245.ff67pb2ii5irr5zr@alap3.anarazel.de>
	<2808045.1619628335@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+hUKGJ03Q-TmE8-JzAm04_1maYus6_kX7XB--JBh1K63agSbQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<2947529.1619652293@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20210429001224.cdkef4ybkw7gramv@alap3.anarazel.de>

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2021-04-28 19:24:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> IOW, we've spent over twice as many CPU cycles shipping data to the
>> standby as we did in applying the WAL on the standby.

> I don't really know how the time calculation works on mac. Is there a
> chance it includes time spent doing IO?

I'd be pretty astonished if it did.  This is basically a NetBSD system
remember (in fact, this ancient macOS release is a good deal closer
to those roots than modern versions).  BSDen have never accounted for
time that way AFAIK.  Also, the "ps" man page says specifically that
that column is CPU time.

> Oh! I was about to ask how much shared buffers your primary / standby
> have. And I think I may actually have reproduce a variant of the issue!

Default configurations, so 128MB each.

			regards, tom lane





view thread (174+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <2949950.1619655883@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../2949950.1619655883@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/2949950.1619655883@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, thomas.munro@gmail.com, sfrost@snowman.net, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, david@pgmasters.net, 9erthalion6@gmail.com, Jakub.Wartak@tomtom.com, tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com
  Subject: Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)
  In-Reply-To: <2949950.1619655883@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox