Re: track_planning causing performance regression

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, bttanakahbk <bttanakahbk(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Hamid Akhtar <hamid(dot)akhtar(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tharakan, Robins" <tharar(at)amazon(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: track_planning causing performance regression
Date: 2020-09-30 07:11:55
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 03:32:54PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> The piece about a single shared lwlocks is/was about protecting the set
> of entries that are currently in-memory - which can't easily be
> implemented just using atomics (at least without the risk of increasing
> the counters of an entry since replaced with another query).

This discussion has stalled, and the patch proposed is incorrect, so I
have marked it as RwF in the CF app.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2020-09-30 07:14:26 Re: Spurious "apparent wraparound" via SimpleLruTruncate() rounding
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2020-09-30 07:07:42 Re: [PATCH] Remove useless distinct clauses