Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dickson S. Guedes
Subject Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer
Date
Msg-id CAHHcrep+nvHw_VqbGMGDYqTtMuVcsQQgqCzjkQGwZdK5vLyaOQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
2011/10/18 Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Dickson S. Guedes <listas@guedesoft.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Ah ok! I started reviewing the v4 patch version, this is my comments:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Well, all the tests was running with the default postgresql.conf in my
>>> laptop but I'll setup a more "real world" environment to test for
>>> performance regression. Until now I couldn't notice any significant
>>> difference in TPS before and after patch in a small environment. I'll
>>> post something soon.
>>
>> Great testing, thanks. Likely will have no effect in non-I/O swamped
>> environment, but no regression expected either.
>
>
> Any reason or objection to committing this patch?

I didn't see any performance regression (as expected) in the
environments that I tested. About the code, I prefer someone with more
experience to review it.

Thanks.
-- 
Dickson S. Guedes
mail/xmpp: guedes@guedesoft.net - skype: guediz
http://guedesoft.net - http://www.postgresql.org.br


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Marti Raudsepp
Date:
Subject: [PATCH] Deferrable unique constraints vs join removal -- bug?
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: loss of transactions in streaming replication