Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alan Li <ali(at)truviso(dot)com>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression?
Date: 2009-06-22 14:16:15
Message-ID: 16210.1245680175@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alan Li <ali(at)truviso(dot)com> writes:
> How much concern is there for the contention for use cases where the WAL
> can't be bypassed?

If you mean "is something going to be done about it in 8.4", the
answer is "no". This is a pre-existing issue that there is no simple
fix for.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-06-22 14:18:51 Re: security checks for largeobjects?
Previous Message David Fetter 2009-06-22 13:24:44 Re: security checks for largeobjects?