Horton

Re: Sync Rep and shutdown Re: Sync Rep v19

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-03-21T17:04:46Z
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. Document guc context values, and reference them from the config doc section.

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com> wrote:
> pgbench -i -s 50 test
> Two runs of "pgbench -c 10 -M prepared -T 600 test" with 1 sync standby -
> server configs etc were mailed upthread.
>
>> - performance as of commit e148443ddd95cd29edf4cc1de6188eb9cee029c5
>
> 1158 and 1306 (avg 1232)
>>
>> - performance as of current git master
>
> 1181 and 1280 (avg 1230,5)
>>
>> - performance as of current git master with
>> sync-standbys-defined-rearrangement applied
>
> 1152 and 1269 (avg 1210,5)

Hmm, that doesn't appear to show the 20% regression Simon claimed
upthread.  That's good...  but I'm confused as to how you are getting
numbers this high at all without a BBU.  If every commit has to wait
for two consecutive fsyncs, cranking out 1200+ commits per second is a
lot.  Maybe it's just barely plausible if these are 15K drives and all
the commits are piggybacking on the fsyncs at top speed, but, man,
that's fast.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company