Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Васильев Дмитрий <d(dot)vasilyev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794
Date: 2016-02-11 18:41:20
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> Well, I can't do anything about that right now. I won't have the time to
>> whip up the new/more complex API we discussed upthread in the next few
>> days. So either we go with a simpler API (e.g. pretty much a cleaned up
>> version of my earlier patch), revert the postmaster deatch check, or
>> somebody else has to take lead in renovating, or we wait...

> Well, I thought we could just revert the patch until you had time to
> deal with it, and then put it back in. That seemed like a simple and
> practical option from here, and I don't think I quite understand why
> you and Tom don't like it.

Don't particularly want the git history churn, if we expect that the
patch will ship as-committed in 9.6. If it becomes clear that the
performance fix is unlikely to happen, we can revert then.

If the performance change were an issue for a lot of testing, I'd agree
with a temporary revert, but I concur with Andres that it's not blocking
much. Anybody who does have an issue there can revert locally, no?

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2016-02-11 18:44:25 Re: checkpointer continuous flushing - V16
Previous Message Andres Freund 2016-02-11 18:39:29 Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean