Re: One process per session lack of sharing

From: AMatveev(at)bitec(dot)ru
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: One process per session lack of sharing
Date: 2016-07-19 11:18:22
Message-ID: 514225797.20160719141822@bitec.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi

> Using TLS will slow down things noticeably though. So if we were to go
> there, we'd have to make up for some constant slowdown.
I can not understand why?

I've read
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms686749(v=vs.85).aspx
and
http://david-grs.github.io/tls_performance_overhead_cost_linux/
"""
The results are quite straightforward: no overhead at all.
"""

0x0000000000404f40 <+0>: inc DWORD PTR [rip+0x202382]
vs
0x0000000000404f50 <+0>: inc DWORD PTR fs:0xfffffffffffffffc

It's clear.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2016-07-19 12:08:53 Re: [BUG] pg_basebackup from disconnected standby fails
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2016-07-19 09:53:38 Adjust recovery test file name