| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: RecoveryInProgress() has critical side effects |
| Date: | 2021-11-16 21:30:27 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobPUPNNqaZgpvm94WBQ42tUf179xmpP1v+oT38kzoKS+Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 3:42 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2021-11-16 15:19:19 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > Hm. I think this might included a bunch of convoluting factors that make it
> > > hard to judge the actual size of the performance difference.
> >
> > Yes, I think so, too.
>
> FWIW I ran that pgench thing I presented upthread, and I didn't see any
> meaningful and repeatable performance difference 354a1f8d220, ad26ee28250 and
> 0002 applied ontop of ad26ee28250. The run-to-run variance is way higher than
> the difference between the changes.
Thanks. I suspected that the results I was seeing were not meaningful,
but it's hard to be sure when the results seem to be repeatable
locally.
I'm still not entirely clear on whether you prefer v1-0002, v2-0002,
or something else.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2021-11-16 21:47:03 | Re: refactoring basebackup.c |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-11-16 21:02:44 | Re: Granting SET and ALTER SYSTE privileges for GUCs |