| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tharakan, Robins" <tharar(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: track_planning causing performance regression |
| Date: | 2020-07-03 02:39:34 |
| Message-ID: | bc8125cb-264e-5a48-7d1f-17b84df831ed@oss.nttdata.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/07/01 7:37, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 6:40 AM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
>> Ants and Andres suggested to replace the spinlock used in pgss_store() with
>> LWLock. I agreed with them and posted the POC patch doing that. But I think
>> the patch is an item for v14. The patch may address the reported performance
>> issue, but may cause other performance issues in other workloads. We would
>> need to measure how the patch affects the performance in various workloads.
>> It seems too late to do that at this stage of v13. Thought?
>
> I agree that it's too late for v13.
Thanks for the comment!
So I pushed the patch and changed default of track_planning to off.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2020-07-03 02:43:42 | Re: Persist MVCC forever - retain history |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2020-07-03 02:20:22 | Re: Add Information during standby recovery conflicts |