Re: let's kill AtSubStart_Notify

From: Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan(dot)ladhe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: let's kill AtSubStart_Notify
Date: 2019-09-27 09:49:40
Message-ID: CAOgcT0NAc_05XSxWyE_00bQF+CKLaM17grJb3vLqEKzLk9TY4w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Correction -

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:11 PM Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan(dot)ladhe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
wrote:

> I ran your testcase and on my VM I get numbers like 3593.801 ms
> without patch and 3593.801 with the patch, average of 5 runs each.
> The runs were quite consistent.
>

3593.801 ms without patch and 3213.809 with the patch,
approx. 10% gain.

Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2019-09-27 10:15:57 Re: pg_wal/RECOVERYHISTORY file remains after archive recovery
Previous Message Jeevan Ladhe 2019-09-27 09:43:25 Re: let's kill AtSubStart_Notify