Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(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: 2023-05-31 11:35:55
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 09:26:25AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Simpler and consistent, nice. I don't have much more to add, so I
> have switched the patch as RfC.

While at PGcon, Andres has asked me how many sockets are in the
environment I used for the tests, and lscpu tells me the following,
which is more than 1:
CPU(s): 64
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-63
Core(s) per socket: 16
Socket(s): 2
NUMA node(s): 2

@Andres: Were there any extra tests you wanted to be run for more

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2023-05-31 12:34:49 Re: benchmark results comparing versions 15.2 and 16
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2023-05-31 11:01:44 Re: PG 16 draft release notes ready