Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements
Date: 2023-05-09 03:32:07
Message-ID: ZFm+tzHgF6sqyUIa@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 04:04:10PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 05:57:09PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
>> test-case 1: -T5, WAL ~16 bytes
>> test-case 1: -t1000, WAL ~16 bytes
>
> I wonder if it's worth doing a couple of long-running tests, too.

Yes, 5s or 1000 transactions per client is too small, though it shows
that things are going in the right direction.

(Will reply to the rest in a bit..)
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2023-05-09 03:41:36 Re: DROP DATABASE is interruptible
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2023-05-09 03:26:16 Re: Tab completion for CREATE SCHEMAAUTHORIZATION