Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
От | Jesper Pedersen |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 563D11FB.5000209@redhat.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 11/06/2015 03:38 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> While I saw an improvement for the 'synchronous_commit = on' case - >> there is a small regression for 'off', using -M prepared + Unix Domain >> Socket. If that is something that should be considered right now. > > What tests where you running, in which order? I presume it's a read/write pgbench? What scale, shared buffers? > Scale is 3000, and shared buffer is 64Gb, effective is 160Gb. Order was master/off -> master/on -> pinunpin/off -> pinunpin/on. > I right now can't see any reason sc on/off should be relevant for the patch. Could it be an artifact of the order you rantests in? > I was puzzled too, hence the post. > Did you initdb between tests? Pgbench -i? Restart the database? I didn't initdb / pgbench -i between the tests, so that it is likely it. I'll redo. Best regards, Jesper
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: