From: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robert(dot)haas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add the "snapshot too old" feature |
Date: | 2016-04-11 13:20:45 |
Message-ID: | CAPpHfdtMONZFOXSsw1HkrD9Eb4ozF8Q8oCqH4tkpH_girJPPuA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Kevin,
This commit makes me very uneasy. I didn't much care about this patch
mainly because I didn't imagine its consequences. Now, I see following:
1) We uglify buffer manager interface a lot. This patch adds 3 more
arguments to BufferGetPage(). It looks weird. Should we try to find less
invasive way for doing this?
2) Did you ever try to examine performance regression? I tried simple read
only test on 4x18 Intel server.
pgbench -s 1000 -c 140 -j 100 -M prepared -S -T 300 -P 1 postgres (data
fits to shared_buffers)
master - 193 740.3 TPS
snapshot too old reverted - 1 065 732.6 TPS
So, for read-only benchmark this patch introduces more than 5 times
regression on big machine.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-04-11 13:27:30 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add the "snapshot too old" feature |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2016-04-11 12:29:17 | pgsql: Fix documented return type of pg_logical_emit_message() in func. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-04-11 13:27:30 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add the "snapshot too old" feature |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-04-11 13:10:01 | Re: Execute ignoring cursor? |