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.


Andres Freund

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to