On 2016-04-13 14:08:49 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > I'll run with -1 once the current (longer) run has finished. > > Just for the record, were any of the other results purporting to be > with the feature "off" also actually running with the feature set > for its fastest possible timeout?
Yes, I'd only used 0 / 10. I think that shows that the contention, for me, is primarily the lwlock, not the spinlock. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
