Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
| От | Simon Riggs |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+U5nM+WNtfOUEZOPM1sjgbgveNg1J-7iPEAzqok7xxSLgRrbg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes: >> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Um ... timings of what? > >> Apologies for being terse, no problem to give a full explanation. > > But you still didn't. I wanted to know what those numbers were and how > they show that there's not a performance regression. Presumably you > meant that some were "before" and some "after", but they were not so > labeled. All timings were "after" applying the patch. Since all of the tests had very acceptable absolute values I didn't test without-patch. Anyway, looks like we need to bin that and retest with new patch when it comes. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: