Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-05-04 00:01:20 +0300, Ants Aasma wrote:
> > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Tomas Vondra
> > <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > > If you tell me how to best test it, I do have a 4-socket server sitting
> > > idly
> > > in the corner (well, a corner reachable by SSH). I can get us some
> > > numbers,
> > > but I haven't been following the snapshot_too_old so I'll need some
> > > guidance
> > > on what to test.
> > I worry about two contention points with the current implementation.
> > The main one is the locking within MaintainOldSnapshotTimeMapping()
> > that gets called every time a snapshot is taken. AFAICS this should
> > show up by setting old_snapshot_threshold to any positive value and
> > then running a simple within shared buffers scale factor read only
> > pgbench at high concurrency (number of CPUs or a small multiple). On a
> > single socket system this does not show up.
> On a two socket system it does, check the bottom of:
> Note that this (accidentally) compares thresholds 0 and 10 (instead of
> -1 and 10),
In other words, we expect that when the feature is disabled, no
performance degradation occurs, because that function is not called at
Honestly, I don't see any strong ground in which to base a revert threat
for this feature. It doesn't scale as well as we would like in the case
where a high-level is fully stressed with a read-only load -- okay. But
that's unlikely to be a case where this feature is put to work. So I
think accepting the promise that this feature would be improved in a
future release to better support that case is good enough.
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: