From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Should we cacheline align PGXACT?
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2016 14:38:52 -0400
Message-ID: <29160.1471718332@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7503E425-6651-4D40-83FD-592AF580D618@gmail.com>
References: <CAPpHfdtJY4zOEDsjad6J5AyZMqZcv6gSY9AkKpA7qN3jyQ2+1Q@mail.gmail.com>
<7503E425-6651-4D40-83FD-592AF580D618@gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Wow, nice results. My intuition on why PGXACT helped in the first place was that it minimized the number of cache lines that had to be touched to take a snapshot. Padding obviously would somewhat increase that again, so I can't quite understand why it seems to be helping... any idea?
That's an interesting point. I wonder whether this whole thing will be
useless or even counterproductive after (if) Heikki's CSN-snapshot patch
gets in. I would certainly not mind reverting the PGXACT/PGPROC
separation if it proves no longer helpful after that.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
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, robertmhaas@gmail.com, a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru
Subject: Re: Should we cacheline align PGXACT?
In-Reply-To: <29160.1471718332@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