Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements |
Дата | |
Msg-id | ZL99FDdzib3N4TsV@paquier.xyz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements
Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 01:08:49PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > Yes, it looks safe to me too. 0001 has been now applied. I have done more tests while looking at this patch since yesterday and was surprised to see higher TPS numbers on HEAD with the same tests as previously, and the patch was still shining with more than 256 clients. > FWIW, 0001 essentially implements what > an existing TODO comment introduced by commit 008608b9d5106 says: We really need to do something in terms of documentation with something like 0002, so I'll try to look at that next. Regarding 0003, I don't know. I think that we'd better look more into cases where it shows actual benefits for specific workloads (like workloads with a fixed rate of read and/or write operations?). -- Michael
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: