From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |
Date: | 2016-09-05 09:27:19 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JcyjZsDoaZ_RJn8Y_patJ8YzudMqDPwTgPH0xPSFyCuQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 3:18 AM, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This thread started a year ago, different people contributed various
>> patches, some of which already got committed. Can someone please post a
>> summary of this thread, so that it's a bit more clear what needs
>> review/testing, what are the main open questions and so on?
>>
>> I'm interested in doing some tests on the hardware I have available, but
>> I'm not willing spending my time untangling the discussion.
>>
>
> I signed up for reviewing this patch. But as Amit explained later, there are
> two different and independent implementations to solve the problem. Since
> Tomas has volunteered to do some benchmarking, I guess I should wait for the
> results because that might influence which approach we choose.
>
> Does that sound correct?
>
Sounds correct to me.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-09-05 09:27:53 | Re: Optimization for lazy_scan_heap |
Previous Message | Antonin Houska | 2016-09-05 09:26:39 | Unused function arguments |