| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hamid Akhtar <hamid(dot)akhtar(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tharakan, Robins" <tharar(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: track_planning causing performance regression |
| Date: | 2020-08-18 15:43:49 |
| Message-ID: | bb780fff-c4b0-44aa-b821-cf2a12df41d1@oss.nttdata.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Yes, I pushed the document_overhead_by_track_planning.patch, but this
> CF entry is for pgss_lwlock_v1.patch which replaces spinlocks with lwlocks
> in pg_stat_statements. The latter patch has not been committed yet.
> Probably attachding the different patches in the same thread would cause
> this confusing thing... Anyway, thanks for your comment!
To avoid further confusion, I attached the rebased version of
the patch that was registered at CF. I'd appreciate it if
you review this version.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| pgss_lwlock_v2.patch | text/plain | 4.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hamid Akhtar | 2020-08-18 15:44:48 | Re: track_planning causing performance regression |
| Previous Message | Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais | 2020-08-18 15:41:31 | Re: [patch] demote |