Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements
От | Bharath Rupireddy |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CALj2ACVzoFSr+CwHFVZ0NYMzZi-XvpsHNw6vK-rAhYcVp+VzWA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements
Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 9:02 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 04:04:10PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote: > > On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 05:57:09PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > >> test-case 1: -T5, WAL ~16 bytes > >> test-case 1: -t1000, WAL ~16 bytes > > > > I wonder if it's worth doing a couple of long-running tests, too. > > Yes, 5s or 1000 transactions per client is too small, though it shows > that things are going in the right direction. I'll pick a test case that generates a reasonable amount of WAL 256 bytes. What do you think of the following? test-case 2: -T900, WAL ~256 bytes (for c in 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 768 1024 2048 4096 - takes 3.5hrs) test-case 2: -t1000000, WAL ~256 bytes If okay, I'll fire the tests. -- Bharath Rupireddy PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: