Horton

Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc?

vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>

View thread
From: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
To: David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>, Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com>, Maciek Sakrejda <m.sakrejda@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-02-01T18:44:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. pg_test_timing: Also test RDTSC[P] timing, report time source, TSC frequency

  2. Allow retrieving x86 TSC frequency/flags from CPUID

  3. instrumentation: Standardize ticks to nanosecond conversion method

  4. instrumentation: Use Time-Stamp Counter on x86-64 to lower overhead

  5. Zero initialize uses of instr_time about to trigger compiler warnings

  6. instr_time: Represent time as an int64 on all platforms

  7. Add 250c8ee07ed to git-blame-ignore-revs

On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 at 09:03, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 at 16:06, David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > On 2/14/23 13:48, David Geier wrote:
> > >
> > > It still fails.
> > >
> > > I'll get Cirrus-CI working on my own Github fork so I can make sure it
> > > really compiles on all platforms before I submit a new version.
> >
> > It took some time until Cirrus CI allowed me to run tests against my new
> > GitHub account (there's a 3 days freeze to avoid people from getting
> > Cirrus CI nodes to mine bitcoins :-D). Attached now the latest patch
> > which passes builds, rebased on latest master.
> >
> > I also reviewed the first two patches a while ago in [1]. I hope we can
> > progress with them to further reduce the size of this patch set.
> >
> > Beyond that: I could work on support for more OSs (e.g. starting with
> > Windows). Is there appetite for that or do we rather want to instead
> > start with a smaller patch?
>
> Are we planning to continue on this and take it further?
> I'm seeing that there has been no activity in this thread for nearly 1
> year now, I'm planning to close this in the current commitfest unless
> someone is planning to take it forward.

Since the author or no one else showed interest in taking it forward
and the patch had no activity for more than 1 year, I have changed the
status to RWF. Feel free to add a new CF entry when someone is
planning to resume work more actively.

Regards,
Vignesh