Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location
От
Andres Freund
Тема
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location
Дата
Msg-id
20231009201439.mniitxrfjpygnufc@awork3.anarazel.de
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Hi, On 2023-10-06 13:44:55 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 2:34 PM Andres Freund wrote: > > If I add an unlikely around if (rechdr->xl_rmid == RM_XLOG_ID), the > > performance does improve. But that "only" brings it up to 322.406. Not sure > > what the rest is. > > I don't really think this is worth worrying about. A sub-one-percent > regression on a highly artificial test case doesn't seem like a big > deal. I agree. I think it's worth measuring and looking at, after all the fix might be trivial (like the case of the unlikely for the earlier if()). But it shouldn't block progress on significant features. I think this "issue" might be measurable in some other, not quite as artifical cases, like INSERT ... SELECT or such. But even then it's going to be tiny. Greetings, Andres Freund
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Jeff Davis
Дата: