Re: WAL format and API changes (9.5)

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: WAL format and API changes (9.5)
Date: 2014-10-06 01:42:50
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQT0Gbjo1z=YeKtD86OxR1NH9X4j09jk=+o=rEHNKmWvg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
wrote:
> So I now have a refactoring patch ready that I'd like to commit (the
attached two patches together), but to be honest, I have no idea why the
second patch is so essential to performance.
Thanks. I did some more tests with master, master+patch1, master+patch1+CRC
refactoring, but I am not able to see any performance difference with
pgbench (--no-vacuum, -t) and the test suite you provided, just some noise
that barely changed performance. Note that fd.c uses
SYNC_METHOD_FSYNC_WRITETHROUGH, so it is necessary to include xlog.h in it.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marti Raudsepp 2014-10-06 02:12:05 Re: CREATE IF NOT EXISTS INDEX
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2014-10-06 01:32:28 Feasibility of supporting bind params for all command types