| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Optimize commit_siblings in two ways to improve group commit. |
| Date: | 2010-12-08 19:25:57 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikRCsFW-1h-OoRwpW67eZNQKpLc_Rd=9D6yXcN-@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Optimize commit_siblings in two ways to improve group commit.
>> First, avoid scanning the whole ProcArray once we know there
>> are at least commit_siblings active; second, skip the check
>> altogether if commit_siblings = 0.
>
>> Greg Smith
>
> I wonder whether we shouldn't change commit_siblings' default value to
> zero while we're at it.
Not that I see anything to disagree with in this patch, but what
happened to posting patches in advance of committing them? Or did I
just miss that part?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-08 19:31:03 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Optimize commit_siblings in two ways to improve group commit. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-08 18:56:12 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Optimize commit_siblings in two ways to improve group commit. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-08 19:31:03 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Optimize commit_siblings in two ways to improve group commit. |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-08 19:24:34 | Re: unlogged tables |