Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jesper Pedersen
Subject Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Date
Msg-id 563D11FB.5000209@redhat.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics  (Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 11/06/2015 03:38 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> While I saw an improvement for the 'synchronous_commit = on' case -
>> there is a small regression for 'off', using -M prepared + Unix Domain
>> Socket. If that is something that should be considered right now.
>
> What tests where you running, in which order? I presume it's a read/write pgbench? What scale, shared buffers?
>

Scale is 3000, and shared buffer is 64Gb, effective is 160Gb.

Order was master/off -> master/on -> pinunpin/off -> pinunpin/on.

> I right now can't see any reason sc on/off should be relevant for the patch. Could it be an artifact of the order you
rantests in?
 
>

I was puzzled too, hence the post.

> Did you initdb between tests? Pgbench -i? Restart the database?

I didn't initdb / pgbench -i between the tests, so that it is likely it.

I'll redo.

Best regards, Jesper





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: extend pgbench expressions with functions
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.