| From: | Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hot Standby tuning for btree_xlog_vacuum() |
| Date: | 2010-05-17 18:45:44 |
| Message-ID: | E05A2FDD-8B3B-4288-822C-F1BE58BB463A@decibel.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Apr 29, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Objections to commit?
>
> This is not the time to be hacking stuff like this. You haven't even
> demonstrated that there's a significant performance issue here.
I tend to agree that this point of the cycle isn't a good one to be making changes, but your performance statement confuses me. If a fairly small patch means we can avoid un-necessary reads why shouldn't we avoid them?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-17 20:01:52 | Re: Performance problem in textanycat/anytextcat |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-05-17 18:43:25 | errcontext from PL/pgSQL (was message style for errcontext) |