RE: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size

From: "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'Masahiro Ikeda' <ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size
Date: 2020-08-19 04:49:02
Message-ID: TYAPR01MB299012A0BA63D1ABB58D7B1EFE5D0@TYAPR01MB2990.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

From: Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
> If my understanding is correct, we have to measure the performance
> impact first.
> Do you know HariBabu is now trying to solve it? If not, I will try to
> modify patches to apply HEAD.

No, he's not doing it anymore. It'd be great if you could resume it. However, I recommend sharing your understanding about what were the issues with those two threads and how you're trying to solve them. Was the performance overhead the blocker in both of the threads?

Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2020-08-19 05:02:55 Re: Creating foreign key on partitioned table is too slow
Previous Message Masahiro Ikeda 2020-08-19 04:41:29 RE: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size