Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location
Date: 2023-10-06 17:44:55
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZ721J=7kbpRZEBB=rKo7JE8KTh8O8vXapo-teTVYKwDg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 2:34 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> If I add an unlikely around if (rechdr->xl_rmid == RM_XLOG_ID), the
> performance does improve. But that "only" brings it up to 322.406. Not sure
> what the rest is.

I don't really think this is worth worrying about. A sub-one-percent
regression on a highly artificial test case doesn't seem like a big
deal. Anybody less determined than you would have been unable to
measure that there even is a regression in the first place, and that's
basically everyone.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michał Kłeczek 2023-10-06 17:55:08 Re: FDW LIM IT pushdown
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2023-10-06 17:42:09 Re: Pre-proposal: unicode normalized text