Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> It would be interesting to see some gprof or oprofile output from that
> test. I went back and dug up the results that I got when I profiled
> this patch during initial development, and my version of the patch
> applied, the profile looked like this on my system:
Were you testing with a temp table? The lack of XLogInsert in your
profile is striking. Stefan's results upthread had it at the top,
and I got more or less the same thing here (didn't keep my numbers
unfortunately).
> Simon had the idea of further improving performance by keeping the
> current buffer locked (this patch just kept it pinned, but not
> locked), but I didn't see an obvious clean design for that.
The potential for deadlock seems sufficient reason not to do that.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
