| From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Takashi Menjo <takashi(dot)menjou(dot)vg(at)hco(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PoC] Non-volatile WAL buffer |
| Date: | 2020-02-17 04:39:29 |
| Message-ID: | CA+HiwqH+RPgkczS9gBVbYzPUeZaR-qG4K3zgJxp1GJvy5vWHJA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Menjo-san,
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 1:13 PM Takashi Menjo
<takashi(dot)menjou(dot)vg(at)hco(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> I applied my patchset that mmap()-s WAL segments as WAL buffers to refs/tags/REL_12_0, and measured and analyzed its performance with pgbench. Roughly speaking, When I used *SSD and ext4* to store WAL, it was "obviously worse" than the original REL_12_0.
I apologize for not having any opinion on the patches themselves, but
let me point out that it's better to base these patches on HEAD
(master branch) than REL_12_0, because all new code is committed to
the master branch, whereas stable branches such as REL_12_0 only
receive bug fixes. Do you have any specific reason to be working on
REL_12_0?
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2020-02-17 04:44:14 | Re: assert pg_class.relnatts is consistent |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2020-02-17 04:25:05 | Re: assert pg_class.relnatts is consistent |