| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SLRU statistics |
| Date: | 2020-05-13 17:44:44 |
| Message-ID: | 8367.1589391884@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
>>> (IIRC only the Async module is doing that.)
> Hm, maybe we can fix that.
Yeah, it's quite easy to make async.c postpone its first write to the
async SLRU. This seems like a win all around, because many installations
don't use NOTIFY and so will never need to do that work at all. In
installations that do use notify, this costs an extra instruction or
two per NOTIFY, but that's down in the noise.
I got through check-world with the assertion shown that we are not
counting any SLRU operations in the postmaster. Don't know if we
want to commit that or not --- any thoughts?
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| dont-do-slru-ops-in-postmaster.patch | text/x-diff | 2.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey M. Borodin | 2020-05-13 18:08:37 | Re: MultiXact\SLRU buffers configuration |
| Previous Message | legrand legrand | 2020-05-13 17:28:12 | Re: Is it useful to record whether plans are generic or custom? |