Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bXVqQ-00020d-7h for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 15:55:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bXVqP-00054Z-Qy for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 15:55:01 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bXVqP-00054Q-4G for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 15:55:01 +0000 Received: from lists.commandprompt.com ([2604:da00:2:2:5054:ff:fe07:7618]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bXVqG-0005WK-Qn for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 15:54:59 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.60] (spinlock.commandprompt.com [69.168.55.30]) by lists.commandprompt.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 549A62BE; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 08:54:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from c-73-225-27-179.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([73.225.27.179] helo=[192.168.1.60]) by assp.commandprompt.com with SMTPSA(TLSv1_2 ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256) (2.5.1); 10 Aug 2016 08:54:49 -0700 Subject: Re: Proposal for CSN based snapshots To: Robert Haas , Heikki Linnakangas References: <51B6C97B.1070000@bluegap.ch> <539AD153.9000004@vmware.com> <1409043789.2335.330.camel@jeff-desktop> <53FC6545.7000501@vmware.com> <1409116988.2335.463.camel@jeff-desktop> <53FD7D65.9040602@vmware.com> <53FD7DCC.5020005@vmware.com> <69041c5a-ec60-3c54-49d0-5df071b27f52@iki.fi> <79213506-4c9c-7e7a-44c6-ae94484c1159@iki.fi> <6906.1470840684@sss.pgh.pa.us> <8c150c9d-6ba2-69fd-e908-ed2fc2775c05@iki.fi> Cc: Tom Lane , Alexander Korotkov , Simon Riggs , Dilip Kumar , Jeff Davis , PostgreSQL-development , Alvaro Herrera , Greg Stark , Andres Freund , Rajeev rastogi , Markus Wanner , Ants Aasma , Bruce Momjian , obartunov , Teodor Sigaev From: "Joshua D. Drake" Organization: Command Prompt, Inc. Message-ID: <3406288c-9989-5c95-4445-5443b7a7b66f@commandprompt.com> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 08:54:48 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Assp-Version: 2.5.1(16177) on assp.commandprompt.com X-Assp-ID: assp.commandprompt.com m1-44489-12304 X-Assp-Session: 7F682C33F000 (mail 1) X-Assp-Original-Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for CSN based snapshots X-Assp-Client-SSL: yes X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org On 08/10/2016 08:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >>> Still, having to invent CSNs seems like a huge loss for this design. >>> Personally I'd give up async commit first. If we had only sync commit, >>> the rule could be "xact LSN less than snapshot threshold and less than >>> WAL flush position", and we'd not need CSNs. I know some people like >>> async commit, but it's there because it was easy and cheap in our old >>> design, not because it's the world's greatest feature and worth giving >>> up performance for. >> >> I don't think that's a very popular opinion (I disagree, for one). >> Asynchronous commits are a huge performance boost for some applications. The >> alternative is fsync=off, and I don't want to see more people doing that. >> SSDs have made the penalty of an fsync much smaller, but it's still there. > > Uh, yeah. Asynchronous commit can be 100 times faster on some > realistic workloads. If we remove it, many people will have to decide > between running with fsync=off and abandoning PostgreSQL altogether. > That doesn't strike me as a remotely possible line of attack. +1 for Robert here, removing async commit is a non-starter. It is PostgreSQL performance 101 that you disable synchronous commit unless you have a specific data/business requirement that needs it. Specifically because of how much faster Pg is with async commit. Sincerely, jD > -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them. Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers