Subject: Re: track_planning causing performance regression
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>, "Tharakan, Robins"
 <tharar@amazon.com>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <2895b53b033c47ccb22972b589050dd9@EX13D05UWC001.ant.amazon.com>
 <CAOBaU_ZNAjSQEdWK9ERsv6zqhdRqB_C0dVv97BrKETV4Rv7gig@mail.gmail.com>
 <d4a15deb-8a85-b78c-b447-bc5df7c4a926@oss.nttdata.com>
 <CAH2-WzmVP4ibDDSipQi_BamMrPeB72X8iW0R-T9gA-ZToG=m9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH2-WznCT6rZYGYE_Zxf1oYDZVMyXqm+SWRx+R2b5-DX11pmpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <42a13b4c-e60c-c6e7-3475-8eff8050bed4@oss.nttdata.com>
 <CAH2-WzmYXtaeCtTEmU_37Eiu5AuRM3etinKFKo=posnLtcxe3g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Message-ID: <bc8125cb-264e-5a48-7d1f-17b84df831ed@oss.nttdata.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 11:39:34 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAH2-WzmYXtaeCtTEmU_37Eiu5AuRM3etinKFKo=posnLtcxe3g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2020/07/01 7:37, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 6:40 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>> Ants and Andres suggested to replace the spinlock used in pgss_store() with
>> LWLock. I agreed with them and posted the POC patch doing that. But I think
>> the patch is an item for v14. The patch may address the reported performance
>> issue, but may cause other performance issues in other workloads. We would
>> need to measure how the patch affects the performance in various workloads.
>> It seems too late to do that at this stage of v13. Thought?
> 
> I agree that it's too late for v13.

Thanks for the comment!

So I pushed the patch and changed default of track_planning to off.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION