Re: [HACKERS] snapbuild woes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: [HACKERS] snapbuild woes
Date
Msg-id 20170513202331.pkbmv2n5yqfjhety@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] snapbuild woes  (Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] snapbuild woes  (Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2017-05-12 10:57:55 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> Hmm, well it helps but actually now that we don't track individual
> running transactions anymore it got much less effective (my version of
> 0005 does as well).
> 
> The example workload I test with is:
> session 1: open transaction, do a write, keep it open
> session 2: pgbench  -M simple -N -c 10 -P 1 -T 5
> session 3: run CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT LOGICAL in walsender
> session 2: pgbench  -M simple -N -c 10 -P 1 -T 20
> session 1: commit
> 
> And wait for session 3 to finish slot creation, takes about 20 mins on
> my laptop without patches, minute and half with your patches for 0004
> and 0005 (or with your 0004 and my 0005) and about 2s with my original
> 0004 and 0005.

Is that with assertions enabled or not?  With assertions all the time
post patches seems to be spent in some Asserts in reorderbuffer.c,
without it takes less than a second for me here.

I'm appylying these now.

Greetings,

Andres Freund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] Latest Data::Dumper breaks hstore_plperl regression test