Re: Hot Standby tuning for btree_xlog_vacuum()

From: Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hot Standby tuning for btree_xlog_vacuum()
Date: 2010-05-17 18:45:44
Message-ID: E05A2FDD-8B3B-4288-822C-F1BE58BB463A@decibel.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Apr 29, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Objections to commit?
>
> This is not the time to be hacking stuff like this. You haven't even
> demonstrated that there's a significant performance issue here.

I tend to agree that this point of the cycle isn't a good one to be making changes, but your performance statement confuses me. If a fairly small patch means we can avoid un-necessary reads why shouldn't we avoid them?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-05-17 20:01:52 Re: Performance problem in textanycat/anytextcat
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2010-05-17 18:43:25 errcontext from PL/pgSQL (was message style for errcontext)