Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics

From: Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Date: 2015-11-06 20:47:55
Message-ID: 563D11FB.5000209@redhat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 11/06/2015 03:38 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> While I saw an improvement for the 'synchronous_commit = on' case -
>> there is a small regression for 'off', using -M prepared + Unix Domain
>> Socket. If that is something that should be considered right now.
>
> What tests where you running, in which order? I presume it's a read/write pgbench? What scale, shared buffers?
>

Scale is 3000, and shared buffer is 64Gb, effective is 160Gb.

Order was master/off -> master/on -> pinunpin/off -> pinunpin/on.

> I right now can't see any reason sc on/off should be relevant for the patch. Could it be an artifact of the order you ran tests in?
>

I was puzzled too, hence the post.

> Did you initdb between tests? Pgbench -i? Restart the database?

I didn't initdb / pgbench -i between the tests, so that it is likely it.

I'll redo.

Best regards,
Jesper

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-11-06 20:59:36 Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.
Previous Message Fabien COELHO 2015-11-06 20:44:31 Re: extend pgbench expressions with functions