Horton

Re: track_planning causing performance regression

Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
To: Hamid Akhtar <hamid.akhtar@gmail.com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>, "Tharakan, Robins" <tharar@amazon.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-08-18T15:43:49Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

> Yes, I pushed the document_overhead_by_track_planning.patch, but this
> CF entry is for pgss_lwlock_v1.patch which replaces spinlocks with lwlocks
> in pg_stat_statements. The latter patch has not been committed yet.
> Probably attachding the different patches in the same thread would cause
> this confusing thing... Anyway, thanks for your comment!

To avoid further confusion, I attached the rebased version of
the patch that was registered at CF. I'd appreciate it if
you review this version.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION

Commits

  1. doc: Fix description about pg_stat_statements.track_planning.

  2. doc: Add note about possible performance overhead by enabling track_planning.

  3. Change default of pg_stat_statements.track_planning to off.