Vladimir Borodin wrote: > > > 7 янв. 2016 г., в 5:26, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> > > написал(а): > > > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Alvaro Herrera > > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com <mailto:alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote:
Advertising
> >> Would you please have a look at Simon's patch, in particular verify > >> whether it solves the performance dip in your testing environment? > >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANP8%2BjJuyExr1HnTAdZraWsWkfc-octhug7YPtzPtJcYbyi4pA%40mail.gmail.com > >> (Note there's an updated patch a few emails down the thread.) > >> > >> If it seems to fix the problem for you, I think we should mark yours > >> rejected and just apply Simon’s. > > Ok, I’ll try this patch with my use case. Basically, it’s not so easy > now since I’ve partitioned that big table to not have such problems > but there is a way to reproduce it once again. If it helps, I agree > that my should be rejected in favor of the Simon’s patch because my > patch just reduces replication lag but Simon’s seems to remove lag at > all. I would agree except for the observation on toast indexes. I think that's an important enough use case that perhaps we should have both. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
