From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Jignesh K. Shah <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 8.3beta1 testing on Solaris
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:51:07 -0400
Message-ID: <29721.1193359867@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <871wbi95nb.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
References: <4720FB72.8060800@sun.com>
<26010.1193345641@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<871wbi95nb.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Didn't we already go through this? He and Simon were pushing to bump up
> NUM_CLOG_BUFFERS and you were arguing that the test wasn't representative and
> some other clog.c would have to be reengineered to scale well to larger
> values.
AFAIR we never did get any clear explanation of what the test case is.
I guess it must be write-mostly, else lazy XID assignment would have
helped this by reducing the rate of XID consumption.
It's still true that I'm leery of a large increase in the number of
buffers without reengineering slru.c. That code was written on the
assumption that there were few enough buffers that a linear search
would be fine. I'd hold still for 16, or maybe even 32, but I dunno
how much impact that will have for such a test case.
regards, tom lane
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, stark@enterprisedb.com, J.K.Shah@Sun.COM, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 8.3beta1 testing on Solaris
In-Reply-To: <29721.1193359867@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