Re: effective_io_concurrency's steampunk spindle maths

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: effective_io_concurrency's steampunk spindle maths
Date: 2020-05-12 18:57:52
Message-ID: CAH2-Wz=k2UvfJujaCZrss1NiarVSfU4OL=a3p+wA5_kgPzz-5w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 9:27 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:20 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Here's a patch set to remove the spindle stuff, add a maintenance
> > variant, and use the maintenance one in
> > heap_compute_xid_horizon_for_tuples().
>
> Pushed.

Shouldn't you close out the "Should we rename
effective_io_concurrency?" Postgres 13 open item now?

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2020-05-12 19:30:20 Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster.
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2020-05-12 18:37:38 Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)