From: Ronan Dunklau <ronan.dunklau@aiven.io>
To: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: FSM Corruption (was: Could not read block at end of the relation)
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:47:52 +0100
Message-ID: <6055942.lOV4Wx5bFT@aivenlaptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2493745.irdbgypaU6@aivenlaptop>
References: <VtPLBUerbMM8BSDLQwIMV9Co_38iHS1TXE4V09x2ZVFhPkZMNE8LwgPSIzB8PHkVFXykGx04QNAzZVjJFAnU1w==@protonmail.internalid>
<20240316045834.83@rfd.leadboat.com>
<2493745.irdbgypaU6@aivenlaptop>
Le jeudi 21 mars 2024, 14:51:25 CET Ronan Dunklau a écrit :
> Le samedi 16 mars 2024, 05:58:34 CET Noah Misch a écrit :
> > > - Get profiles with both master and patched. (lseek or freespace.c
> > > functions>
> > >
> > > rising by 0.1%-1% would fit what we know.)
Running perf during the same benchmark, I get the following samples for lseek:
With the patch:
0.02% postgres libc.so.6 [.] llseek@GLIBC_2.2.5
Without the patch:
0.01% postgres libc.so.6 [.] llseek@GLIBC_2.2.5
So nothing too dramatic.
I haven't been able to come up with a better benchmark.
Regards,
--
Ronan
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-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: ronan.dunklau@aiven.io, noah@leadboat.com, michael@paquier.xyz, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: FSM Corruption (was: Could not read block at end of the relation)
In-Reply-To: <6055942.lOV4Wx5bFT@aivenlaptop>
* 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