On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 2013-09-17 17:55:01 +0600, Дмитрий Дегтярёв wrote: >> We have not been able to reproduce this problem on a test servers. Use this >> patch to production servers do not dare. >> >> In the course of studying the problems we have identified that many queries >> are executed on the slave several times slower. On master function >> heap_hot_search_buffer execute 100 cycles, on the slave the same query with >> the same plan function heap_hot_search_buffer execute 2000 cycles. >> Also, we were able to reproduce the problem on the master and detect that >> there s_lock of slow queries. > > What you describe is normally an indication that you have too many > longrunning transactions around preventing hot pruning from working.
Do you think it's worth submitting the lock avoidance patch for formal review? merlin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
