Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock)
Date
Msg-id 7608.1331134118@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock)  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock)  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
>>> So they are undoubtely rare. �Not sure if as rare as Higgs bosons.

>> Even if they're rare, having a major performance hiccup when one happens
>> is not a side-effect I want to see from a patch whose only reason to
>> exist is better performance.

> I agree the effect you point out can exist, I just don't want to slow
> down the main case as a result.

I don't see any reason to think that what I suggested would slow things
down, especially not if the code were set up to fall through quickly in
the typical case where no page boundary is crossed.  Integer division is
not slow on any machine made in the last 15 years or so.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe"
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_stat_statements and planning time