Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD
Date
Msg-id 20140421165235.GF25695@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD  (Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>)
Responses Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD  (Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alfred Perlstein wrote:

> I am unsure of the true overhead of making this a runtime tunable so
> pardon if I'm asking for "a lot".  From the perspective of both an
> OS developer and postgresql user (I am both) it really makes more
> sense to have it a runtime tunable for the following reasons:
> 
> From an OS developer making this a runtime allows us to much more
> easily do the testing (instead of needing two compiled versions).
> From a sysadmin perspective it makes switching to/from a LOT easier
> in case the new mmap code exposes a stability or performance bug.

In this case, AFAICS the only overhead of a runtime option (what we call
a GUC) is the added potential for user confusion, and the necessary
documentation.  If we instead go for a compile-time option, both items
become smaller.

In any case, I don't see that there's much need for a runtime option,
really; you already know that the mmap code path is slower in FreeBSD.
You only need to benchmark both options once the FreeBSD vm code itself
is fixed, right?

In fact, it might not even need to be a configure option; I would
suggest a pg_config_manual.h setting instead, and perhaps tweaks to the
src/template/freebsd file to enable it automatically on the "broken"
FreeBSD releases.  We could then, in the future, have the template
itself turn the option off for the future FreeBSD release that fixes the
problem.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: assertion failure 9.3.4