public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Bharath Rupireddy <[email protected]>
To: Bossart, Nathan <[email protected]>
Cc: Maxim Orlov <[email protected]>
Cc: Pavel Borisov <[email protected]>
Cc: Maxim Orlov <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Pre-allocating WAL files
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2022 13:38:26 +0530
Message-ID: <CALj2ACVQMph_hH5n5eS9aYeKTXzn2TMP+E9YHoOq-+3H-DAigA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALj2ACUAYU5LeYGj+EdTBULhMgbpGJTAUd9KwzbBD4ynd_jWeA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<163352276350.15435.3988688227048304232.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org>
	<[email protected]>
	<CALT9ZEG+R9ne6xTyEVSiLhZ7wJAQ1Jq-9XVZs=zbd_jQJyPTdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACG=ezb5Os_ohi1caZJLKsGJc-nSSqGXFrMjmKw4qN8fG_=NEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CALj2ACUAYU5LeYGj+EdTBULhMgbpGJTAUd9KwzbBD4ynd_jWeA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 1:36 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 3:39 AM Bossart, Nathan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/30/21, 3:52 AM, "Maxim Orlov" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I did check the patch too and found it to be ok. Check and check-world are passed.
> > > Overall idea seems to be good in my opinion, but I'm not sure where is the optimal place to put the pre-allocation.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 2:46 PM Pavel Borisov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> I've checked the patch v7. It applies cleanly, code is good, check-world tests passed without problems.
> > >> I think it's ok to use checkpointer for this and the overall patch can be committed. But the seen performance gain makes me think again before adding this feature. I did tests myself a couple of months ago and got similar results.
> > >> Really don't know whether is it worth the effort.
> >
> > Thank you both for your review.
>
> It may have been discussed earlier, let me ask this here - IIUC the
> whole point of pre-allocating WAL files is that creating new WAL files
> of wal_segment_size requires us to write zero-filled empty pages to
> the disk which is costly. With the advent of
> fallocate/posix_fallocate, isn't file allocation going to be much
> faster on platforms where fallocate is supported? IIRC, the
> "Asynchronous and "direct" IO support for PostgreSQL." has a way to
> use fallocate. If at all, we move ahead and use fallocate, then the
> whole point of pre-allocating WAL files becomes unnecessary?
>
> Having said above, the idea of pre-allocating WAL files is still
> relevant, given the portability of fallocate/posix_fallocate.

Adding one more point: do we have any numbers like how much total time
WAL files allocation usually takes, maybe under a high-write load
server?

Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.

view thread (3+ messages)

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: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Pre-allocating WAL files
  In-Reply-To: <CALj2ACVQMph_hH5n5eS9aYeKTXzn2TMP+E9YHoOq-+3H-DAigA@mail.gmail.com>

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

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