On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 7:37 PM, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > I have been looking at the proposed set for Linux, and the numbers are > here. By replaying 1GB worth of WAL after a pgbench run with the data > folder on a tmpfs the recovery time goes from 33s to 28s, so that's a > nice gain.
Thanks for testing. > Do you have numbers with FreeBSD? I get that this would be more > difficult to set up without a GA release perhaps... I don't have production build numbers, but a similar test to yours went from 91s to 61s on a debug kernel in a virtual machine. > I can also see the difference in profiles by looking for > HandleStartupProcInterrupts which gets close 10% of the attention when > unpatched, and down to 0.1% when patched. > > @@ -2484,6 +2484,8 @@ ClosePostmasterPorts(bool am_syslogger) > if (bonjour_sdref) > close(DNSServiceRefSockFD(bonjour_sdref)); > #endif > + > + PostmasterDeathInit(); > > Thomas, trying to understand here... Why this place for the signal > initialization? Wouldn't InitPostmasterChild() be a more logical place > as we'd want to have this logic caught by all other processes? Yeah, you're right. Here's one like that. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com
0001-Use-signals-for-postmaster-death-on-Linux-v4.patch
Description: Binary data
0002-Use-signals-for-postmaster-death-on-FreeBSD-v4.patch
Description: Binary data
