Re: connection establishment versus parallel workers

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: connection establishment versus parallel workers
Date: 2024-12-19 16:09:35
Message-ID: Z2RFP_4tEEImDfrl@nathan
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Sorry for the delay, and thanks again for digging into this.

On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 03:56:00PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> 0001 patch is unchanged, 0002 patch sketches out a response to the
> observation a couple of paragraphs above.

Both of these patches seem to improve matters quite a bit. I haven't yet
thought too deeply about it all, but upon a skim, your patches seem
entirely reasonable to me.

However, while this makes the test numbers for >= v16 look more like those
for v15, we're also seeing a big jump from v13 to v14. This bisects pretty
cleanly to commit d872510. I haven't figured out _why_ this commit is
impacting this particular test, but I figured I'd at least update the
thread with what we know so far.

--
nathan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2024-12-19 16:18:31 Re: Add CASEFOLD() function.
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2024-12-19 16:09:16 Re: Bug in nbtree SAOP scans with non-required arrays, truncated high key