From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.2 |
Date: | 2014-02-01 21:41:43 |
Message-ID: | 20140201214143.GB32123@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-02-01 13:40:20 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >> I'm looking at alternative options, because this is not terribly
> >> helpful. With those big caveats in mind, consider the results of the
> >> benchmark, which show the patch performing somewhat worse than the
> >> master baseline at higher client counts:
> >
> > I think that's actually something else. I'd tried to make some
> > definitions simpler, and that has, at least for the machine I have
> > occasional access to, pessimized things. I can't always run the tests
> > there, so I hadn't noticed before the repost.
>
> I should have been clearer on one point: The pre-rebased patch (actual
> patch series) [1] was applied on top of a commit from around the same
> period, in order to work around the bit rot.
Ah. Then I indeed wouldn't expect improvements.
> However, I tested the
> most recent revision from your git remote on the AWS instance.
>
> [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20131115194725.GG5489@awork2.anarazel.de
But that was before my fix, right. Except you managed to timetravel :)
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-02-01 21:57:06 | Re: Postgresql for cygwin - 3rd |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-02-01 21:40:20 | Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.2 |