| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sergey Koposov <koposov(at)ast(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: slow dropping of tables, DropRelFileNodeBuffers, tas |
| Date: | 2012-06-07 13:56:52 |
| Message-ID: | 8169.1339077412@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sergey Koposov <koposov(at)ast(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk> writes:
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>> Sounds less good and we'd need reasonable proof it actually did
>>>> anything useful without being dangerous.
>>> Doing an initial unlocked test speeds things up another 2.69 fold (on
>>> top of 3.55 for your patch) for me, with 1GB of shared buffers. That
>>> seems like it should be worthwhile.
>>> How do we go about getting reasonable proof that it is safe?
>> That's enough for me.
Say what? That's a performance result and proves not a damn thing about
safety.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-06-07 13:59:54 | Re: Avoiding adjacent checkpoint records |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-06-07 13:50:35 | XLog changes for 9.3 |