On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 07:10:33PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 6:30 PM, Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:54:26PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Thomas Munro > >> <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 6:24 AM, Catalin Iacob <iacobcata...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > I don't know enough about this to make such a strong recommendation > >> > myself, which is why I was only trying to report that bad performance > >> > had been observed on some version, not that you shouldn't do it. Any > >> > other views on this stronger statement? > >> > >> Now that the Windows huge pages patch has landed, here is a rebase. I > >> took your alternative and tweaked it a tiny bit more. Thoughts? > > Sorry, right, that was 100% wrong. It would probably be correct to > remove the "not", but let's just remove that bit. New version > attached.
+ <productname>PostgreSQL</productname>. On Linux, this is called + "transparent huge pages", but since that feature is known to cause + performance degradation with + <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> on current Linux versions + (unlike explicit use of <varname>huge_pages</varname>), its use is + discouraged. Consider this shorter, less-severe sounding alternative: "... (but note that this feature can degrade performance of some <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> workloads)." Justin
