pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Cc: houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Fdw batch insert error out when set batch_size > 65535
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 18:44:28 -0400
Message-ID: <2131017.1623451468@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ec642523-bf1a-a4cd-013c-b789ff091849@enterprisedb.com>
References: <OS0PR01MB571603973C0AC2874AD6BF2594299@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
	<OS0PR01MB57160ADFD5010254C8D1CE6594259@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
	<CALj2ACVvrd6LGga6UzOu17GzW0cmaS-F30KMBSxKsA+Zw8Z=BQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALj2ACXBJ3a7MLbCAGA=5dneYsD720KPp1Pot-kKVM1YFPkESA@mail.gmail.com>
	<73ed9fba-df31-462f-cd4a-28602254cd9f@enterprisedb.com>
	<CALj2ACXq8a=FdrPDa=_wMrvOwcZjrNfCdeyfG-2dt17LyBEc=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<OS0PR01MB571674E988B480E82066EA7794239@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
	<fe6cea83-b378-dce0-0506-03ff9a1a581d@enterprisedb.com>
	<CALj2ACUxf+PRaTVPEY-pV_nNgsB0_U2uU3u8GqMKcF-6M2exjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<68b4d5bd-d9fd-4337-e677-0bc5b3b7db6f@enterprisedb.com>
	<CALj2ACXoxbNhpKx2r29OyBdx+fA51Xsv80B-9-xyp1CeBL3ckQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1! 271666.1623218746@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1272762.1623220109@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<06650e9a-086c-0020-614f-f7ff39609c43@enterprisedb.com>
	<1291662.1623245310@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<6abb33e8-db04-3d39-4f9a-7a22a75e0cc8@enterprisedb.com>
	<e! c642523-bf1a-a4cd-013c-b789ff091849@enterprisedb.com>

Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> There's one caveat, though - for regular builds the slowdown is pretty
> much eliminated. But with valgrind it's still considerably slower. For
> postgres_fdw the "make check" used to take ~5 minutes for me, now it
> takes >1h. And yes, this is entirely due to the new test case which is
> generating / inserting 70k rows. So maybe the test case is not worth it
> after all, and we should get rid of it.

I bet the CLOBBER_CACHE animals won't like it much either.

I suggest what we do is leave it in place for long enough to get
a round of reports from those slow animals, and then (assuming
those reports are positive) drop the test.

			regards, tom lane





view thread (33+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <2131017.1623451468@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../2131017.1623451468@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/2131017.1623451468@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com, bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com, houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: Fdw batch insert error out when set batch_size > 65535
  In-Reply-To: <2131017.1623451468@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox