Re: XLog size reductions: Reduced XLog record header size for PG17

From: Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: XLog size reductions: Reduced XLog record header size for PG17
Date: 2024-01-03 10:15:05
Message-ID: CALT9ZEFx4jJ47t-Vmz-jAVRrG+9TSP9uThDssbDHmWdsSjz5Fw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi and Happy New Year!

I've looked through the patches and the change seems quite small and
justified. But at the second round, some doubt arises on whether this long
patchset indeed introduces enough performance gain? I may be wrong, but it
saves only several bytes and the performance gain would be only in some
specific artificial workload. Did you do some measurements? Do we have
several percent performance-wise?

Kind regards,
Pavel Borisov

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dean Rasheed 2024-01-03 10:22:07 Re: Adding OLD/NEW support to RETURNING
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2024-01-03 09:48:50 Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication