Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch> wrote:
> On 08/30/2010 04:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Let me just point out that awhile back we got a *measurable* performance
>> boost by eliminating a single indirect fetch from the buffer addressing
>> code path.
>
> I'll take a look a that, thanks.
>
>> So I don't have any faith in untested assertions
> Neither do I. Thus I'm probably going to try my approach.

As a matter of project management, I am inclined to think that until
we've hammered out this issue, there's not a whole lot useful that can
be done on any of the BG worker patches.  So I am wondering if we
should set those to Returned with Feedback or bump them to a future
CommitFest.

The good news is that, after a lot of back and forth, I think we've
identified the reason underpinning much of why Markus and I have been
disagreeing about dynshmem and imessages - namely, whether or not it's
possible to allocate shared_buffers as something other than one giant
slab without taking an unacceptable performance hit.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company