Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
| От | Alexander Korotkov |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAPpHfdu09fSG2XoCeq1K2sfBf67pc6WnX3z_hN4fkVO0G4Uiyg@mail.gmail.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 |
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
On April 9, 2016 12:43:03 PM PDT, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>On 2016-04-09 22:38:31 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>> There are results with 5364b357 reverted.
>
>Crazy that this has such a negative impact. Amit, can you reproduce
>that? Alexander, I guess for r/w workload 5364b357 is a benefit on that
>machine as well?
How sure are you about these measurements?
I'm pretty sure. I've retried it multiple times by hand before re-run the script.
Because there really shouldn't be clog lookups one a steady state is reached...
Hm... I'm also surprised. There shouldn't be clog lookups once hint bits are set.
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: