Re: Fdw batch insert error out when set batch_size > 65535
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Fdw batch insert error out when set batch_size > 65535 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 06650e9a-086c-0020-614f-f7ff39609c43@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Fdw batch insert error out when set batch_size > 65535 (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Fdw batch insert error out when set batch_size > 65535
Re: Fdw batch insert error out when set batch_size > 65535 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/9/21 8:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> writes: >>>> I've added a simple regression test to postgres_fdw, testing that batch >>>> sizes > 65535 work fine, and pushed the fix. > >>> I was earlier thinking of adding one, but stopped because it might >>> increase the regression test execution time. It looks like that's true >>> - with and without the test case it takes 17 sec and 4 sec >>> respectively on my dev system which is 4X slower. I'm not sure if this >>> is okay. > >> The cost, versus the odds of ever detecting a problem, doesn't >> seem like a good tradeoff. > > I took a quick look and noted that on buildfarm member longfin > (to take a random example that's sitting a few feet from me), > the time for contrib-install-check went from 34 seconds before > this patch to 40 seconds after. I find that completely > unacceptable compared to the likely value of this test case. > Note that the problem here is [1] - we're creating a lot of slots referencing the same tuple descriptor, which inflates the duration. There's a fix in the other thread, which eliminates ~99% of the overhead. I plan to push that fix soon (a day or two). regards -- Tomas Vondra EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: