Re: heads up: Fix for intel hardware bug will lead to performance regressions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: heads up: Fix for intel hardware bug will lead to performance regressions
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqQ79V3nS+LuzaHRfYdovU_Cr6im-_u3wm+DNOy_q95j9Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: heads up: Fix for intel hardware bug will lead to performance regressions  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Also pgarch.c, syncrep.c, walsender.c and walreceiver.c use
> PostmasterIsAlive() every time through their loops[1] generating extra
> syscalls, one instance of which has caused complaints before[1] on a
> system where the syscall was expensive (arguably because that kernel
> needs some work but still, it's an example of the thing you asked
> about).
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20160915135755.GC19008%40genua.de

Or we could replace calls to PostmasterIsAlive() by checks on
WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH? At least for the WAL sender portion it looks
doable.
-- 
Michael


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel append plan instability/randomness
Next
From: Amit Khandekar
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel append plan instability/randomness