Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.2

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.2
Date: 2014-02-01 21:40:20
Message-ID: CAM3SWZQxPrQE+_Jk=n_czpeP991g5x7LuwMUp1jhtT-J+rT54w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'm looking at alternative options, because this is not terribly
>> helpful. With those big caveats in mind, consider the results of the
>> benchmark, which show the patch performing somewhat worse than the
>> master baseline at higher client counts:
>
> I think that's actually something else. I'd tried to make some
> definitions simpler, and that has, at least for the machine I have
> occasional access to, pessimized things. I can't always run the tests
> there, so I hadn't noticed before the repost.

I should have been clearer on one point: The pre-rebased patch (actual
patch series) [1] was applied on top of a commit from around the same
period, in order to work around the bit rot. However, I tested the
most recent revision from your git remote on the AWS instance.

[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20131115194725.GG5489@awork2.anarazel.de
--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-02-01 21:41:43 Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.2
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-02-01 20:49:17 Re: [9.3 bug] disk space in pg_xlog increases during archive recovery