Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] 8.3beta1 testing on Solaris

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 8.3beta1 testing on Solaris
Date: 2007-10-26 00:51:07
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Didn't we already go through this? He and Simon were pushing to bump up
> NUM_CLOG_BUFFERS and you were arguing that the test wasn't representative and
> some other clog.c would have to be reengineered to scale well to larger
> values. 

AFAIR we never did get any clear explanation of what the test case is.
I guess it must be write-mostly, else lazy XID assignment would have
helped this by reducing the rate of XID consumption.

It's still true that I'm leery of a large increase in the number of
buffers without reengineering slru.c.  That code was written on the
assumption that there were few enough buffers that a linear search
would be fine.  I'd hold still for 16, or maybe even 32, but I dunno
how much impact that will have for such a test case.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2007-10-26 02:56:56
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 8.3beta1 testing on Solaris
Previous:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2007-10-25 22:43:52
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 8.3beta1 testing on Solaris

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-10-26 01:11:02
Subject: Re: Autovacuum cancellation
Previous:From: Henry B. HotzDate: 2007-10-26 00:39:37
Subject: Re: 8.3 GSS Issues

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group