From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, ik(at)postgresql-consulting(dot)com, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Wait events monitoring future development |
Date: | 2016-08-08 17:14:08 |
Message-ID: | CAMkU=1xg_OjJ-ZgfunRjazG2_XEtVArauiiAdvUZVdtbHbFv4g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 04:43:40PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> > According to developers, overhead is small, but many people have doubts
>> > that it can be much more significant for intensive workloads. Obviously, it
>> > is not an easy task to test, because you need to put doubtfully
>> > non-production ready code into mission-critical production for such tests.
>> > As a result it will be clear if this design should be abandoned and we
>> > need to think about less-invasive solutions or this design is acceptable.
>> >
>>
>> I think here main objection was that gettimeofday can cause
>> performance regression which can be taken care by using configurable
>> knob. I am not aware if any other part of the design has been
>> discussed in detail to conclude whether it has any obvious problem.
>
> It seems asking users to run pg_test_timing before deploying to check
> the overhead would be sufficient.
They should also run it in parallel, as sometimes the real overhead is
in synchronization between multiple CPUs and doesn't show up when only
a single CPU is involved.
Cheers,
Jeff
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Anastasia Lubennikova | 2016-08-08 17:16:50 | Re: Re: GiST optimizing memmoves in gistplacetopage for fixed-size updates [PoC] |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-08-08 17:10:45 | Re: No longer possible to query catalogs for index capabilities? |