| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why do we still have commit_delay and commit_siblings? |
| Date: | 2012-05-14 06:45:35 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+xOjGKtiBKMNDpjw6XhhbX1ALUavV2nPX18wWKH4r82Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 14 May 2012 07:30, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> That said, I wouldn't mind removing commit_delay and commit_siblings.
> They're pretty much impossible to tune correctly, assuming they work as
> advertised. Some hard data would be nice, though, as Robert suggested.
Those parameters were already hard to get any benefit from, even in a
benchmark. In a wide range of cases/settings they produce clear
degradation.
Any thorough testing would involve a range of different hardware
types, so its unlikely to ever occur. So lets just move on.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2012-05-14 07:15:00 | Re: Why do we still have commit_delay and commit_siblings? |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-05-14 06:30:11 | Re: Why do we still have commit_delay and commit_siblings? |