On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:00 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > > On 2/26/16 11:37 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com >> >> Here, we can see that there is a gain of ~15% to ~38% at higher >> client count. >> >> The attached document (perf_write_clogcontrollock_data_v6.ods) >> contains data, mainly focussing on single client performance. The >> data is for multiple runs on different machines, so I thought it is >> better to present in form of document rather than dumping everything >> in e-mail. Do let me know if there is any confusion in >> understanding/interpreting the data. >> >> Forgot to mention that all these tests have been done by >> reverting commit-ac1d794. > > > This patch no longer applies cleanly: > > $ git apply ../other/group_update_clog_v6.patch > error: patch failed: src/backend/storage/lmgr/proc.c:404 > error: src/backend/storage/lmgr/proc.c: patch does not apply > error: patch failed: src/include/storage/proc.h:152 > error: src/include/storage/proc.h: patch does not apply >
For me, with patch -p1 < <path_of_patch> it works, but any how I have updated the patch based on recent commit. Can you please check the latest patch and see if it applies cleanly for you now. > > It's not clear to me whether Robert has completed a review of this code or it still needs to be reviewed more comprehensively. > > Other than a comment that needs to be fixed it seems that all questions have been answered by Amit. > I have updated the comments and changed the name of one of a variable from "all_trans_same_page" to "all_xact_same_page" as pointed out offlist by Alvaro. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
group_update_clog_v7.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
