On 2017-04-27 09:31:34 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 04/27/2017 08:59 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > > Ok, based on the, few, answers I've got so far, my experience is indeed > > skewed. A number of the PG users I interacted with over the last couple > > years had WAL write ranges somewhere in the range of 500MB/s to 2.2GB/s > > (max I'veseen). At that point WAL insertion became a major bottleneck, > > even if storage was more than fast enough to keep up. To address these > > we'd need some changes, but the feedback so far suggest that it's not > > yet a widespread issue... > > I would agree it isn't yet a widespread issue. I'm not yet sure about that actually. I suspect a large percentage of people with such workloads aren't lingering lots on the lists. > The only people that are likely going to see this are going to be on bare > metal. We should definitely plan on that issue for say 11. "plan on that issue" - heh. We're talking about major engineering projects here ;) > I do have a question though, where you have seen this issue is it with > synchronous_commit on or off? Both. Whether that matters or not really depends on the workload. If you have bulk writes, it doesn't really matter much. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
