| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: undetected deadlock in ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... REFRESH PUBLICATION |
| Date: | 2023-12-05 11:48:31 |
| Message-ID: | a2e22743-3bb6-8e94-10ed-478e3e25e65a@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/5/23 08:14, Shlok Kyal wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> As for the test results, I very much doubt the differences are not
>> caused simply by random timing variations, or something like that. And I
>> don't understand what "Performance Machine Linux" is, considering those
>> timings are slower than the other two machines.
>
> The machine has Total Memory of 755.536 GB, 120 CPUs and RHEL 7 Operating System
> Also find the detailed info of the performance machine attached.
>
Thanks for the info. I don't think the tests really benefit from this
much resources, I would be rather surprised if it was faster beyond 8
cores or so. The CPU frequency likely matters much more. Which probably
explains why this machine was the slowest.
Also, I wonder how much the results vary between the runs. I suppose you
only did s single run for each, right?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-12-05 12:17:57 | Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences, take 2 |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-12-05 11:32:49 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |