Jesper Pedersen <jesper.peder...@redhat.com> writes:
> On 09/05/2017 02:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm, so if we can't demonstrate a performance win, it's hard to justify
>> risking touching this code. What test case(s) did you use?
> I ran pgbench (-M prepared) with synchronous_commit 'on' and 'off' using
> both logged and unlogged tables. Also ran an internal benchmark which
> didn't show anything either.
That may just mean that pgbench isn't stressing any atomic ops very
hard (at least in the default scenario).
I'm tempted to write a little C function that just hits the relevant
atomic ops in a tight loop, and see how long it takes to do a few
million iterations. That would be erring in the opposite direction,
of overstating the importance of atomic ops to real-world scenarios
--- but if we didn't get any win that way, then it's surely in the noise.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
