Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Christian Kruse <christian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition
Date: 2014-02-04 22:45:30
Message-ID: 20140204224530.GJ32407@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-02-04 13:42:51 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Christian Kruse
> <christian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > Ok, benchmark for baseline+alignment patch is running.
>
> I see that you have enabled latency information. For this kind of
> thing I prefer to hack pgbench-tools to not collect this (i.e. to not
> pass the "-l" flag, "Per-Transaction Logging"). Just remove it and
> pgbench-tools rolls with it. It may well be that the overhead added is
> completely insignificant, but for something like this, where the
> latency information is unlikely to add any value, I prefer to not take
> the chance. This is a fairly minor point, however, especially since
> these are only 60 second runs where you're unlikely to accumulate
> enough transaction latency information to notice any effect.

Hm, I don't find that convincing. If you look at the results from the
last run the latency information is actually quite interesting.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-02-04 22:47:27 Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-02-04 22:29:54 Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT