Re: Hot Standby tuning for btree_xlog_vacuum()

Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> On Apr 29, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is not the time to be hacking stuff like this. You haven't even
>> demonstrated that there's a significant performance issue here.

> I tend to agree that this point of the cycle isn't a good one to be making changes, but your performance statement confuses me. If a fairly small patch means we can avoid un-necessary reads why shouldn't we avoid them?

Well, by "time of the cycle" I meant "the day before beta1". I'm not
necessarily averse to making such a change at some point when it would
get more than no testing before hitting our long-suffering beta testers.
But I'd still want to see some evidence that there's a significant
performance improvement to be had.

regards, tom lane