| From: | Alan Li <ali(at)truviso(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 06:42:40 |
| Message-ID: | 782056770906212342n2e04c3b7k5987b6e59a1f8374@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Tom,
How much concern is there for the contention for use cases where the WAL
can't be bypassed?
Thanks, Alan
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
> > The following copying 3M rows(each) into a seperate table of the same
> > database.
>
> Is this with WAL, or bypassing WAL? Given what we've already seen,
> a lot of contention for WALInsertLock wouldn't surprise me much here.
> It should be possible to bypass that though.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-06-22 07:13:00 | Re: Missing Docs for MOVE direction? |
| Previous Message | Brendan Jurd | 2009-06-22 06:39:49 | Re: BUG #4862: different results in to_date() between 8.3.7 & 8.4.RC1 |