| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: heads up: Fix for intel hardware bug will lead to performance regressions |
| Date: | 2018-01-08 05:24:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQ79V3nS+LuzaHRfYdovU_Cr6im-_u3wm+DNOy_q95j9Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Also pgarch.c, syncrep.c, walsender.c and walreceiver.c use
> PostmasterIsAlive() every time through their loops[1] generating extra
> syscalls, one instance of which has caused complaints before[1] on a
> system where the syscall was expensive (arguably because that kernel
> needs some work but still, it's an example of the thing you asked
> about).
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20160915135755.GC19008%40genua.de
Or we could replace calls to PostmasterIsAlive() by checks on
WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH? At least for the WAL sender portion it looks
doable.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Khandekar | 2018-01-08 05:41:29 | Re: Parallel append plan instability/randomness |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-01-08 04:40:38 | Re: Parallel append plan instability/randomness |