| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: log chunking broken with large queries under load |
| Date: | 2012-04-04 21:07:31 |
| Message-ID: | 4F7CB813.9070502@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/04/2012 03:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> The idea I had in mind was to compensate for adding list-removal logic
>> by getting rid of the concept of an unused entry. If the removal is
>> conditional then you can't do that and you end up with the complications
>> of both methods. Anyway I've not tried to code it yet.
> I concluded this would probably be a loser performance-wise, because it
> would add a couple of palloc/pfree cycles to the processing of each
> multi-chunk message, whether there was any contention or not. So I
> committed the patch with just some cosmetic cleanups.
>
>
OK, thanks for doing this.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2012-04-04 21:18:44 | Re: Speed dblink using alternate libpq tuple storage |
| Previous Message | Euler Taveira | 2012-04-04 20:50:05 | Re: postgres long options without value |