| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements |
| Date: | 2023-07-25 07:43:16 |
| Message-ID: | ZL99FDdzib3N4TsV@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 01:08:49PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Yes, it looks safe to me too.
0001 has been now applied. I have done more tests while looking at
this patch since yesterday and was surprised to see higher TPS numbers
on HEAD with the same tests as previously, and the patch was still
shining with more than 256 clients.
> FWIW, 0001 essentially implements what
> an existing TODO comment introduced by commit 008608b9d5106 says:
We really need to do something in terms of documentation with
something like 0002, so I'll try to look at that next. Regarding
0003, I don't know. I think that we'd better look more into cases
where it shows actual benefits for specific workloads (like workloads
with a fixed rate of read and/or write operations?).
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2023-07-25 07:44:34 | Re: doc: improve the restriction description of using indexes on REPLICA IDENTITY FULL table. |
| Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2023-07-25 07:39:58 | Retiring is_pushed_down |