|From:||Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>|
|To:||Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>|
|Cc:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Excessive PostmasterIsAlive calls slow down WAL redo|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi) wrote:
> On 06/04/18 19:39, Andres Freund wrote:
> >On 2018-04-06 07:39:28 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >>While I tend to agree that it'd be nice to just make it cheaper, that
> >>doesn't seem like something that we'd be likely to back-patch and I tend
> >>to share Heikki's feelings that this is a performance regression we
> >>should be considering fixing in released versions.
> To be clear, this isn't a performance *regression*. It's always been bad.
Oh, I see, apologies for the confusion, my initial read was that this
was due to some patch that had gone in previously, hence it was an
actual regression. I suppose I tend to view performance issues as
either "regression" or "opportunity for improvement" and when you said
"bug" it made me think it was a regression. :)
> I'm not sure if I'd backpatch this. Maybe after it's been in 'master' for a
> while and we've gotten some field testing of it.
If it's not a regression then there's I definitely think the bar is much
higher to consider this something to back-patch. I wouldn't typically
argue for back-patching a performance improvement unless it's to address
a specific regression.
|Next Message||Stephen Frost||2018-04-06 19:11:23||Re: Add default role 'pg_access_server_files'|
|Previous Message||Marina Polyakova||2018-04-06 19:06:54||Re: Add support for printing/reading MergeAction nodes|