| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Imai, Yoshikazu" <imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Speed up transaction completion faster after many relations are accessed in a transaction |
| Date: | 2021-10-01 07:03:09 |
| Message-ID: | YVayrWJ3yhb8Lka1@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 05:04:19PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 19:23, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I also adjusted the hash seq scan code so that it performs better when
> > faced a non-sparsely populated table. Previously my benchmark for
> > that case didn't do well [2].
>
> I was running some select only pgbench tests today on an AMD 3990x
> machine with a large number of processes.
>
> I saw that LockReleaseAll was coming up on the profile a bit at:
This last update was two months ago, and the patch has not moved
since:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/34/3220/
Do you have plans to work more on that or perhaps the CF entry should
be withdrawn or RwF'd?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-10-01 07:05:18 | Re: pg_receivewal starting position |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2021-10-01 07:02:46 | Re: [PATCH] test/ssl: rework the sslfiles Makefile target |