On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 15:09 +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> I did some testing of this patch (v2). Unfortunately I don't have access
> to hardware capable of doing tests at the same scale as Erik used.
> However I was still able to show a consistent difference (I think)
> between standby performance with and without the patch applied.
...
> Overall looks like the patch gets standby read only performance close to
> the master - at least in the case where there are minimal master
> transactions being tracked by the standby (I had to leave the master
> idle whilst running the standby case, as they shared the machine). Hope
> this info is useful.
Thanks very much for the report; always good to get confirmation.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
