| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Speedup twophase transactions |
| Date: | 2016-09-27 00:30:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSSONOfnSqrQ6VdAHdwYcrxwbE1GM7pCFi=90zZnMDHug@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> I’m not giving up yet, i’ll write them) I still have in mind several other patches to 2pc handling in
> postgres during this release cycle — logical decoding and partitioned hash instead of
> TwoPhaseState list.
>
> My bet that relative speed of that patches will depend on used filesystem. Like it was with the
> first patch in that mail thread it is totally possible sometimes to hit filesystem limits on file
> creation speed. Otherwise both approaches should be more or less equal, i suppose.
OK. I am marking this patch as returned with feedback then. Looking
forward to seeing the next investigations.. At least this review has
taught us one thing or two.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-09-27 00:38:08 | Re: wal_segment size vs max_wal_size |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-09-26 23:56:24 | Re: pgsql: pg_ctl: Detect current standby state from pg_control |