Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Date: 2015-11-06 20:38:33
Message-ID: B84B1E9A-A068-4598-BF14-E2CC712E5049@anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On November 6, 2015 9:31:37 PM GMT+01:00, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> wrote:
>I have been testing this on a smaller system than yours - 2 socket
>Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2683 v3 w/ 2 x RAID10 SSD disks (data + xlog),
>so focused on a smaller number of clients.

Thanks for running tests!

>While I saw an improvement for the 'synchronous_commit = on' case -
>there is a small regression for 'off', using -M prepared + Unix Domain
>Socket. If that is something that should be considered right now.

What tests where you running, in which order? I presume it's a read/write pgbench? What scale, shared buffers?

I right now can't see any reason sc on/off should be relevant for the patch. Could it be an artifact of the order you ran tests in?

Did you initdb between tests? Pgbench -i? Restart the database?

Andres

---
Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2015-11-06 20:44:31 Re: extend pgbench expressions with functions
Previous Message Jesper Pedersen 2015-11-06 20:31:37 Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics