| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
| Date: | 2012-01-02 19:46:48 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+WNtfOUEZOPM1sjgbgveNg1J-7iPEAzqok7xxSLgRrbg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Um ... timings of what?
>
>> Apologies for being terse, no problem to give a full explanation.
>
> But you still didn't. I wanted to know what those numbers were and how
> they show that there's not a performance regression. Presumably you
> meant that some were "before" and some "after", but they were not so
> labeled.
All timings were "after" applying the patch. Since all of the tests
had very acceptable absolute values I didn't test without-patch.
Anyway, looks like we need to bin that and retest with new patch when it comes.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-01-02 19:49:51 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-01-02 19:42:01 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |