On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Markus Wanner <mar...@bluegap.ch> wrote: > On 08/30/2010 04:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Let me just point out that awhile back we got a *measurable* performance >> boost by eliminating a single indirect fetch from the buffer addressing >> code path. > > I'll take a look a that, thanks. > >> So I don't have any faith in untested assertions > Neither do I. Thus I'm probably going to try my approach.
As a matter of project management, I am inclined to think that until we've hammered out this issue, there's not a whole lot useful that can be done on any of the BG worker patches. So I am wondering if we should set those to Returned with Feedback or bump them to a future CommitFest. The good news is that, after a lot of back and forth, I think we've identified the reason underpinning much of why Markus and I have been disagreeing about dynshmem and imessages - namely, whether or not it's possible to allocate shared_buffers as something other than one giant slab without taking an unacceptable performance hit. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
