Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1axfVb-0003f5-DE for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 03 May 2016 18:57:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1axfVa-0002YW-QV for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 03 May 2016 18:57:22 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1axfVZ-0002Xq-UG for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 03 May 2016 18:57:21 +0000 Received: from mail-wm0-x22c.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::22c]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1axfVW-000640-AP for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 03 May 2016 18:57:21 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id n129so159807149wmn.1 for ; Tue, 03 May 2016 11:57:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=2ndquadrant-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RaVTlSAx4fIve11JM7jP1yfFQUEgMqPPGxqp2nzXz34=; b=HKtVBOCMXKm8DjDw08l8sjpPLbcO7/W7i2bUMRO+KKVTvAlKOeySQ3SmAUBTrhyTJr CBxu0xthEuUCRhe1LJintGmDwda1MdquGR4heyOseTxVJ7vtRGpt3xJn06+iofauLCLm sC53tpWE2TNwqquwioDloMh4G14Dg9a2069voOrG7qquWBtmr3Qq00TtcNIVi1PgynH8 huD51E62e/XSGmfXSl30+RPvfVNhC3d6VFZrL+juUKozq2WM/dpc2UJ/rbNQpJLsMuQL 7bMtRQWIlOyVX2kelxTBp6ST9f1nvMsUzpbFsFGnAR6Cf6uUXmfalWkWWgVbLnV8Jry2 rbzw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RaVTlSAx4fIve11JM7jP1yfFQUEgMqPPGxqp2nzXz34=; b=XtPpI+sYmzs7KPiT2R0IWxlhO0kaEKEun2ECMzu51FVSJGm177Ce2nh1ZXVUtTi52Q RG3ugKjn/ACWW3z7hbRXn6rqxpO4SMman7fDj52c6K/sjs++3oAybBEbtvecd8LgQhfB ll8ZX2GlUA5RmN7zhx/3g1bA39Zx3ExYhlHFVJYX/sgnYTQwqgYUpFNTwcvRLfLzcniC 7wNBIgEhQx2VN2o43wBJtEMkD2vyUNiogj8vInCs+1IpasORifu+3Q112vpKO5PXXAqf C44auDTKBlJJ+IyrasMMl08s6vkt7BbwVBO/NDVZRkBkPcA4uZfssYv0VJaNnMQ7vnjz oHxA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FU6672dVkpqJT4h68eKRmjrp9V8TnqbYnj/8mHN/iZ1nvn7UJTzeTEZG2cHwLcSzKXY790q6FUqAF7FNpXsbZoi9mh+ns9Vj4WJnSEIstcygi8+otU2RyfQAtHBRhgfX/gRjgVFXHF0pexZfygv5G0vh1Pms0Mr6cJhYG6agPAiXM59OAtMISz7uxcwIhnaDq7wX+A9 X-Received: by 10.28.167.193 with SMTP id q184mr5191956wme.63.1462301837318; Tue, 03 May 2016 11:57:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.137.2.17] (ip-89-177-44-58.net.upcbroadband.cz. [89.177.44.58]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id lf9sm564447wjc.44.2016.05.03.11.57.16 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 03 May 2016 11:57:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: what to revert To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org References: <20160503162209.ufuezlkovbrdrayp@alap3.anarazel.de> <20160503174104.tk7oz4akwbeqsmuq@alap3.anarazel.de> From: Tomas Vondra Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 20:57:13 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:46.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/46.0a2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160503174104.tk7oz4akwbeqsmuq@alap3.anarazel.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org On 05/03/2016 07:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-05-03 11:46:23 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: >>> was immediately addressed by another round of benchmarks after you >>> pointed it out. >> >> Which showed a 4% maximum hit before moving the test for whether it >> was "off" inline. > >> (I'm not clear from the posted results whether that was before or >> after skipping the spinlock when the feature was off.) > > They're from after the spinlock issue was resolved. Before that the > issue was a lot worse (see mail linked two messages upthread). > > > I'm pretty sure that I said that somewhere else at least once: But to > be absolutely clear, I'm *not* really concerned with the performance > with the feature turned off. I'm concerned about the performance with > it turned on. If you tell me how to best test it, I do have a 4-socket server sitting idly in the corner (well, a corner reachable by SSH). I can get us some numbers, but I haven't been following the snapshot_too_old so I'll need some guidance on what to test. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers