On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Tomas Vondra
> >> The difference is that both the fast-path locks and msgNumLock went into
> >> 9.2, so that end users probably never saw that regression. But we don't
> know
> >> if that happens for clog and WAL.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you have a working patch addressing the WAL contention, so that
> we
> >> could see how that changes the results?
> >
> > I don't think we do, yet.
> >
> Right.  At this stage, we are just evaluating the ways (basic idea is
> to split the OS writes and Flush requests in separate locks) to reduce
> it.  It is difficult to speculate results at this stage.  I think
> after spending some more time (probably few weeks), we will be in
> position to share our findings.
As per my understanding the current state of the patch is waiting for the
performance results from author.

Moved to next CF with "waiting on author" status. Please feel free to
update the status if the current status differs with the actual patch

Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia

Reply via email to