On 2020/07/04 12:22, Pavel Stehule wrote:


pá 3. 7. 2020 v 13:02 odesílatel Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com 
<mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com>> napsal:



    On 2020/07/03 16:02, Pavel Stehule wrote:
     >
     >
     > pá 3. 7. 2020 v 8:57 odesílatel Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com 
<mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> <mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com 
<mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com>>> napsal:
     >
     >
     >
     >     On 2020/07/03 13:05, Pavel Stehule wrote:
     >      > Hi
     >      >
     >      > pá 3. 7. 2020 v 4:39 odesílatel Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com 
<mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> <mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com>> 
<mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> <mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com 
<mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com>>>> napsal:
     >      >
     >      >
     >      >
     >      >     On 2020/07/01 7:37, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
     >      >      > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 6:40 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com 
<mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> <mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com>> 
<mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> <mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com 
<mailto:masao.fu...@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.
     >      >
     >      >
     >      > Maybe there can be documented so enabling this option can have a 
negative impact on performance.
     >
     >     Yes. What about adding either of the followings into the doc?
     >
     >           Enabling this parameter may incur a noticeable performance 
penalty.
     >
     >     or
     >
     >           Enabling this parameter may incur a noticeable performance 
penalty,
     >           especially when a fewer kinds of queries are executed on many
     >           concurrent connections.
     >
     >
     > This second variant looks perfect for this case.

    Ok, so patch attached.


+1

Thanks for the review! Pushed.

Regards,

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


Reply via email to