On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 10:31 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 01:27:26PM +, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > Here is the perf result of pgoutput_change after applying the patch.
> > I didn't notice something else that stand out.
> >
> > |--2.99%--pgoutput_change
> >
On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 9:31 AM Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 01:27:26PM +, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > Here is the perf result of pgoutput_change after applying the patch.
> > I didn't notice something else that stand out.
> >
> > |--2.99%--pgoutput_cha
On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 01:27:26PM +, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> Here is the perf result of pgoutput_change after applying the patch.
> I didn't notice something else that stand out.
>
> |--2.99%--pgoutput_change
> |--1.80%--get_rel_sync_entry
> |--
On Friday, December 24, 2021 8:13 AM Michael Paquier
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 12:54:41PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 22, 2021, at 10:11 AM, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> >> The extra cost could sometimes be noticeable because get_rel_sync_entry is
> a
> >> hot functio
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 12:54:41PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2021, at 10:11 AM, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
>> The extra cost could sometimes be noticeable because get_rel_sync_entry is a
>> hot function which is executed for each change. And the 'am_partition' and
>> 'relkind
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021, at 10:11 AM, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> When reviewing some logical replication patches. I noticed that in
> function get_rel_sync_entry() we always invoke get_rel_relispartition()
> and get_rel_relkind() at the beginning which could cause unnecessary
> cache access.
>
At Wed, 22 Dec 2021 13:11:38 +, "houzj.f...@fujitsu.com"
wrote in
> Hi,
>
> When reviewing some logical replication patches. I noticed that in
> function get_rel_sync_entry() we always invoke get_rel_relispartition()
> and get_rel_relkind() at the beginning which could cause unnecessary
>
