Hi,
On February 27, 2022 4:19:21 PM PST, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
>With the attached, 027_stream_regress.pl drops from ~29.5s to ~19.6s
>on my FreeBSD workstation!
That's impressive - wouldn't have guessed it to make that much of a difference. I assume that running the tests on
freebsdfor an older pg with a similar s_b & max_wal_size doesn't benefit as much? I wonder how much windows will
improve.
>It seems a little strange to introduce a new wait event that will very
>often appear into a stable branch, but ... it is actually telling the
>truth, so there is that.
In the back branches it needs to be at the end of the enum - I assume you intended that just to be for HEAD.
I wonder whether in HEAD we shouldn't make that sleep duration be computed from the calculation in IsOnSchedule...
>The sleep/poll loop in RegisterSyncRequest() may also have another
>problem. The comment explains that it was a deliberate choice not to
>do CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() here, which may be debatable, but I don't
>think there's an excuse to ignore postmaster death in a loop that
>presumably becomes infinite if the checkpointer exits. I guess we
>could do:
>
>- pg_usleep(10000L);
>+ WaitLatch(NULL, WL_EXIT_ON_PM_DEATH | WL_TIMEOUT, 10,
>WAIT_EVENT_SYNC_REQUEST);
>
>But... really, this should be waiting on a condition variable that the
>checkpointer broadcasts on when the queue goes from full to not full,
>no? Perhaps for master only?
Looks worth improving, but yes, I'd not do it in the back branches.
I do think it's worth giving that sleep a proper wait event though, even in the back branches.
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.