On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:14 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, yeah now it looks in line with other results.
Since it seems there are no remaining concerns here, and we have
benchmarking results showing that the patch helps, I have committed
the patch.
I wonder whether the new code in shm_mq_send_bytes() should guard
against calling shm_mq_inc_bytes_written() with a second argument of
0, or alternatively whether shm_mq_inc_bytes_written() should have an
internal defense against that. It might save some writes to shared
memory, but it would also add a branch, which isn't free, either.
I also think that, as a followup action item, we need to reassess
parallel_tuple_cost.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com