Re: Improving replay of XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM records

Vladimir Borodin wrote:
>
> > 7 янв. 2016 г., в 5:26, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> написал(а):
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> > <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com <mailto:alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>> wrote:

> >> Would you please have a look at Simon's patch, in particular verify
> >> whether it solves the performance dip in your testing environment?
> >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANP8%2BjJuyExr1HnTAdZraWsWkfc-octhug7YPtzPtJcYbyi4pA%40mail.gmail.com
> >> (Note there's an updated patch a few emails down the thread.)
> >>
> >> If it seems to fix the problem for you, I think we should mark yours
> >> rejected and just apply Simon’s.
>
> Ok, I’ll try this patch with my use case. Basically, it’s not so easy
> now since I’ve partitioned that big table to not have such problems
> but there is a way to reproduce it once again. If it helps, I agree
> that my should be rejected in favor of the Simon’s patch because my
> patch just reduces replication lag but Simon’s seems to remove lag at
> all.

I would agree except for the observation on toast indexes. I think
that's an important enough use case that perhaps we should have both.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services