| From: | Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
| Date: | 2010-04-22 21:54:55 |
| Message-ID: | 4BD0C5AF.6070206@catalyst.net.nz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Smith wrote:
> Erik Rijkers wrote:
>> This is the same behaviour (i.e. extreme slow standby) that I saw
>> earlier (and which caused the
>> original post, btw). In that earlier instance, the extreme slowness
>> disappeared later, after many
>> hours maybe even days (without bouncing either primary or standby).
>>
>
> Any possibility the standby is built with assertions turned out?
> That's often the cause of this type of difference between pgbench
> results on two systems, which easy to introduce when everyone is
> building from source. You should try this on both systems:
>
> psql -c "show debug_assertions"
>
>
>
Or even:
pg_config --configure
on both systems might be worth checking.
regards
Mark
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Erik Rijkers | 2010-04-22 22:32:44 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2010-04-22 21:41:29 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |