Re: postmaster uses more CPU in 18 beta1 with io_method=io_uring

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)upgrade(dot)com>, "Burd, Greg" <greg(at)burd(dot)me>
Cc: MARK CALLAGHAN <mdcallag(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: postmaster uses more CPU in 18 beta1 with io_method=io_uring
Date: 2025-07-08 03:22:12
Message-ID: wf3ib2vds33knzwa6yun72qgyqsa7ickqcp5gh2akpedrvvjgk@trbeukpqkhlv
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2025-06-30 12:27:10 -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-06-05 14:32:10 -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2025-06-05 12:47:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > > > I think this is a big enough pitfall that it's, obviously assuming the patch
> > > > has a sensible complexity, worth fixing this in 18. RMT, anyone, what do you
> > > > think?
> > >
> > > Let's see the patch ... but yeah, I'd rather not ship 18 like this.
> >
> > I've attached a first draft.
> >
> > I can't make heads or tails of the ordering in configure.ac, so the function
> > test is probably in the wrong place.
>
> Any comments on that patch? I'd hoped for some review comments... Unless I'll
> hear otherwise, I'll just do a bit more polish and push..

After addressing most of Greg's and Jim's feedback, I pushed this. I chose not
to increase the log level as Jim suggested, but if we end up deciding that
that's the way to go, we can easily change that...

Greetings,

Andres

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bertrand Drouvot 2025-07-08 04:46:28 Re: Adding wait events statistics
Previous Message Andres Freund 2025-07-08 03:04:48 Re: Adding basic NUMA awareness