Re: track_planning causing performance regression

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tharakan, Robins" <tharar(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: track_planning causing performance regression
Date: 2020-06-30 22:37:05
Message-ID: CAH2-WzmYXtaeCtTEmU_37Eiu5AuRM3etinKFKo=posnLtcxe3g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 6:40 AM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
> Ants and Andres suggested to replace the spinlock used in pgss_store() with
> LWLock. I agreed with them and posted the POC patch doing that. But I think
> the patch is an item for v14. The patch may address the reported performance
> issue, but may cause other performance issues in other workloads. We would
> need to measure how the patch affects the performance in various workloads.
> It seems too late to do that at this stage of v13. Thought?

I agree that it's too late for v13.

Thanks
--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2020-06-30 23:06:24 Re: pgsql: Enable Unix-domain sockets support on Windows
Previous Message David Steele 2020-06-30 22:35:55 Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode