On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
> On 10/06/2014 04:42 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Heikki Linnakangas < >> hlinnakan...@vmware.com> >> wrote: >> >>> So I now have a refactoring patch ready that I'd like to commit (the >>> >> attached two patches together), but to be honest, I have no idea why the >> second patch is so essential to performance. >> Thanks. I did some more tests with master, master+patch1, >> master+patch1+CRC >> refactoring, but I am not able to see any performance difference with >> pgbench (--no-vacuum, -t) and the test suite you provided, just some noise >> that barely changed performance. >> > > Thanks for the confirmation. I'm really going crazy with benchmarking > this. Sometimes I see a big difference, the next day it's gone. > The benchmark paradigms. > * Fixed XLogSaveBufferForHint. It didn't initialize BkpBlock struct, > rendering it completely broken. > Note for other reviewers: that's represented by this addition in XLogSaveBufferForHint: + /* Make a BkpBlock struct representing the buffer */ + XLogFillBkpBlock(buffer, buffer_std, &bkpb) Regards, -- Michael
