Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements
От | Bharath Rupireddy |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CALj2ACUZh-cvj3pfqsvQS9Q2aobB-VFUMOfLAy6UGOPCXvay0Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 5:05 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 09:26:25AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > Simpler and consistent, nice. I don't have much more to add, so I > > have switched the patch as RfC. > > While at PGcon, Andres has asked me how many sockets are in the > environment I used for the tests, I'm glad to know that the feature was discussed at PGCon. > and lscpu tells me the following, > which is more than 1: > CPU(s): 64 > On-line CPU(s) list: 0-63 > Core(s) per socket: 16 > Socket(s): 2 > NUMA node(s): 2 Mine says this: CPU(s): 96 On-line CPU(s) list: 0-95 Core(s) per socket: 24 Socket(s): 2 NUMA: NUMA node(s): 2 NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-23,48-71 NUMA node1 CPU(s): 24-47,72-95 > @Andres: Were there any extra tests you wanted to be run for more > input? @Andres Freund please let us know your thoughts. -- Bharath Rupireddy PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: