Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes
Date: 2024-02-27 02:46:13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 04:05:05PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> I tried that now. Mind that I'm not a benchmarking expert, and there's
> been quite some jitter in the results, but I think there's a clear
> trend.
> Even if we regard the 1873 as an outlier, I've seen many vanilla runs
> with 22xx tps, and not a single v28 run with 22xx tps. Other numbers I
> collected suggested a cost of at least 3% for the feature.

Thanks for the numbers. Yes, that's annoying and I suspect could be
noticeable for a lot of users..

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2024-02-27 02:51:23 Re: Fix incorrect PG_GETARG in pgcrypto
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2024-02-27 02:01:55 Re: Better error messages for %TYPE and %ROWTYPE in plpgsql