On 2016-04-12 16:49:25 +0000, Kevin Grittner wrote: > On a big NUMA machine with 1000 connections in saturation load > there was a performance regression due to spinlock contention, for > acquiring values which were never used. Just fill with dummy > values if we're not going to use them.
FWIW, I could see massive regressions with just 64 connections. I'm a bit scared of having an innoccuous sounding option regress things by a factor of 10. I think, in addition to this fix, we need to actually solve the scalability issue here to a good degree. One way to do so is to apply the parts of 0001 in http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20160330230914.GH13305%40awork2.anarazel.de defining PG_HAVE_8BYTE_SINGLE_COPY_ATOMICITY and rely on that. Another to apply the whole patch and simply put the lsn in an 8 byte atomic. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
