On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:14 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, yeah now it looks in line with other results.
Since it seems there are no remaining concerns here, and we have benchmarking results showing that the patch helps, I have committed the patch. I wonder whether the new code in shm_mq_send_bytes() should guard against calling shm_mq_inc_bytes_written() with a second argument of 0, or alternatively whether shm_mq_inc_bytes_written() should have an internal defense against that. It might save some writes to shared memory, but it would also add a branch, which isn't free, either. I also think that, as a followup action item, we need to reassess parallel_tuple_cost. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
