Hi, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com>, 6 Tem 2023 Per, 06:56 tarihinde şunu yazdı: > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 1:48 AM Melih Mutlu <m.melihmu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com>, 4 Tem 2023 Sal, > > 08:42 tarihinde şunu yazdı: > > > > > But in the later patch the tablesync worker tries to reuse the slot > > > > > during the > > > > > synchronization, so in this case the application_name should be same > > > > > as > > > > slotname. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fair enough. I am slightly afraid that if we can't show the benefits > > > > with later patches then we may need to drop them but at this stage I > > > > feel we need to investigate why those are not helping? > > > > > > Agreed. Now I'm planning to do performance testing independently. We can > > > discuss > > > based on that or Melih's one. > > > > Here I attached what I use for performance testing of this patch. > > > > I only benchmarked the patch set with reusing connections very roughly > > so far. But seems like it improves quite significantly. For example, > > it took 611 ms to sync 100 empty tables, it was 1782 ms without > > reusing connections. > > First 3 patches from the set actually bring a good amount of > > improvement, but not sure about the later patches yet. > > > > I suggest then we should focus first on those 3, get them committed > and then look at the remaining. >
That sounds good. I'll do my best to address any review/concern from reviewers now for the first 3 patches and hopefully those can get committed first. I'll continue working on the remaining patches later. -- Melih Mutlu Microsoft
