| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Alan Li <ali(at)truviso(dot)com>, 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>, 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 14:27:17 |
| Message-ID: | 16598.1245680837@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alan Li <ali(at)truviso(dot)com> writes:
>>> How much concern is there for the contention for use cases where the WAL
>>> can't be bypassed?
>>
>> If you mean "is something going to be done about it in 8.4", the
>> answer is "no". This is a pre-existing issue that there is no simple
>> fix for.
> I thought he was asking if we intend to provide for WAL bypass on a
> table by table basis in future.
I thought he was asking for a solution to the problem of WALInsertLock
contention. In any case, we have "WAL bypass on a table by table basis"
now, don't we?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-06-22 14:47:13 | Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-22 14:24:49 | Re: BUG #4862: different results in to_date() between 8.3.7 & 8.4.RC1 |