Re: That EXPLAIN ANALYZE patch still needs work

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: That EXPLAIN ANALYZE patch still needs work
Date: 2006-06-07 13:53:32
Message-ID: 29431.1149688412@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Do we agree the idea can't go further? What next?

It still needs investigation; I'm no longer convinced that the TLB-flush
theory is correct. See rest of thread. We may well have to revert the
current patch, but I'd like to be sure we understand why.

If we do have to revert, I'd propose that we pursue the notion of
interrupt-driven sampling like gprof uses.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-06-07 14:35:42 Re: Compression and on-disk sorting
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-06-07 12:57:50 Re: How to avoid transaction ID wrap