Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On 07/17/2012 06:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Furthermore, I would say that any performance testing done since then,
>> if it wasn't looking at purely read-only scenarios, isn't worth the
>> electrons it's written on. In particular, any performance gain that
>> anybody might have attributed to the checkpointer splitup is very
>> probably hogwash.
> There hasn't been any performance testing that suggested the
> checkpointer splitup was justified. The stuff I did showed it being
> flat out negative for a subset of pgbench oriented cases, which didn't
> seem real-world enough to disprove it as the right thing to do though.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that this means we should revert the
checkpointer split. What I *am* worried about is that we may have been
hacking other things on the basis of faulty performance tests.
regards, tom lane
