Prev: [HACKERS] caracara failing to bind to localhost?
Next: caracara failing to bind to localhost?
From: Heikki Linnakangas on 27 Feb 2010 01:53
Greg Stark wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> There's *definitely* not going to be enough information in the WAL
>> stream coming from a master that doesn't think it has HS slaves.
>> We can't afford to record all that extra stuff in installations for
>> which it's just useless overhead. BTW, has anyone made any attempt
>> to measure the performance hit that the patch in its current form is
>> creating via added WAL entries?
>
> What extra entries?

* An xact-assignment record is written every PGPROC_MAX_CACHED_SUBXIDS
(= 64) subtransaction ids assigned to a single top-level transaction.

* A running-xacts record is written at every online checkpoint

* A btree-reuse-page record is written whenever a dead b-tree page is
recycled

* A vacuum cleanup-info record is written once per VACUUM of a table

* A standby-lock record is written for each AccessExclusiveLock acquired.

Am I missing something?

I doubt any of these are noticeable, though I don't think anyone has
measured it.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: [HACKERS] caracara failing to bind to localhost?
Next: caracara failing to bind to localhost?