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: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>, "Tharakan, Robins" <tharar@amazon.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-07-03T02:39:34Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 

On 2020/07/01 7:37, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 6:40 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>> Ants and Andres suggested to replace the spinlock used in pgss_store() with
>> LWLock. I agreed with them and posted the POC patch doing that. But I think
>> the patch is an item for v14. The patch may address the reported performance
>> issue, but may cause other performance issues in other workloads. We would
>> need to measure how the patch affects the performance in various workloads.
>> It seems too late to do that at this stage of v13. Thought?
> 
> I agree that it's too late for v13.

Thanks for the comment!

So I pushed the patch and changed default of track_planning to off.

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.