| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shawn Debnath <sdn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue |
| Date: | 2019-02-27 21:43:00 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKG+2EuoDhVBdieOKnneFX14SeuRp7z0WG2PSOMJt8ks3qw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:27 AM Shawn Debnath <sdn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
> We had a quick offline discussion to get on the same page and we agreed
> to move forward with Andres' approach above. Attached is patch v10.
> Here's the overview of the patch:
Thanks. I will review, and try to rebase my undo patches on top of
this and see what problems I crash into.
> Ran make check-world and repeated the tests described in [1]. The
> numbers show a 12% drop in total time for single run of 1000 clients and
> ~62% drop in total time for 10 parallel runs with 200 clients:
Hmm, good but unexpected. Will poke at this here.
--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-02-27 21:50:35 | Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-02-27 21:41:37 | Re: POC: converting Lists into arrays |