On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 23:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Added a note to the docs that pg_start_backup can take a long time to
finish now that we spread out checkpoints:
I was starting to wordsmith this, and then wondered whether it's not
just a
On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 09:29 +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I'm requesting here is that the sleep in count_nondeletable_pages()
be removed and that change backpatched to 8.2 and 8.1.
Agreed. We'd better to shorten the exclusive locking as far
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Added a note to the docs that pg_start_backup can take a long time to
finish now that we spread out checkpoints:
I was starting to wordsmith this, and then wondered whether it's not
just a stupid idea for pg_start_backup to act that
I've got a requirement to produce some additional stats from the server
while it executes. Specifically, I'm looking at table interaction stats
to make it easier to determine replication sets accurately for a given
transaction mix.
On brief discussion, seems like a good approach would be to put
On Jun 29, 2007, at 4:25 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Added a note to the docs that pg_start_backup can take a long
time to finish now that we spread out checkpoints:
I was starting to wordsmith this, and then wondered whether
Short question:
While playing around with various postgresql installations i recognized
that pg_dump complaints even within major-releases about different
minor-numbers, such as:
pg_dump: server version: 8.2.4; pg_dump version: 8.2.0
I thought we are safe against pg_dump changes within a
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 03:09:30PM +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
Short question:
While playing around with various postgresql installations i recognized
that pg_dump complaints even within major-releases about different
minor-numbers, such as:
pg_dump: server version: 8.2.4; pg_dump
If you want ORDER BY on the column to default to your custom ordering,
the only way is a distinct datatype that you can make your custom
opclass be the default for.
The domain idea might work, I'm not totally sure. Defining
functions/operators on a domain is a bit ticklish because anything but
--On Freitag, Juni 29, 2007 15:32:19 +0200 Magnus Hagander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 03:09:30PM +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
Short question:
While playing around with various postgresql installations i recognized
that pg_dump complaints even within major-releases about
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 20:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 15:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
A quick grep suggests that VACUUM FULL might be at risk here.
No we're clear: I caught that issue specifically for VACUUM FULL fairly
early on. VF
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
if (stats_hook)
(* stats_hook)(pgStatTabList);
Any objections to sliding this in?
Only that it's useless. What are you going to do in such a hook?
Not send more info to the stats collector, because the message format
is predetermined. AFAICS, if
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 03:09:30PM +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
While playing around with various postgresql installations i recognized
that pg_dump complaints even within major-releases about different
minor-numbers, such as:
pg_dump: server
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 20:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
The methodology I suggested earlier (involving tracking LSN only at the
level of pg_clog pages) isn't going to make that work, unless you
somehow force the XID counter forward to the next page boundary.
On Jun 29, 2007, at 10:25 , Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I will be on vacation in Spain for the next two weeks, and only
sporadically in electronic contact.
Have a great time!
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1:
For anyone who cares ...
I will be on vacation in Spain for the next two weeks, and only
sporadically in electronic contact.
cheers
andrew
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
For anyone who cares ...
I care. I love you man. :/
Have fun, be safe.
Joshua D. Drake
I will be on vacation in Spain for the next two weeks, and only
sporadically in electronic contact.
cheers
andrew
___
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 11:25:31AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
For anyone who cares ...
I will be on vacation in Spain for the next two weeks, and only
Bon voyage! :)
Cheers,
D
sporadically in electronic contact.
cheers
andrew
___
On Jun 26, 2007, at 11:57 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
It might be good to use statistics information about buffer usage
to modify X runtime.
I have a complete set of working code that tracks buffer usage
statistics as the background writer scans, so
On Jun 28, 2007, at 7:55 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
Do you need to increase shared_buffers in such case?
If you have something going wild creating dirty buffers with a high
usage count faster than they are being written to disk, increasing
the size
On Jun 29, 2007, at 3:25 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Added a note to the docs that pg_start_backup can take a long
time to finish now that we spread out checkpoints:
I was starting to wordsmith this, and then wondered whether
Gregory Stark wrote:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
if (stats_hook)
(* stats_hook)(pgStatTabList);
Any objections to sliding this in?
Only that it's useless. What are you going to do in such a hook?
Simon left for camping before you sent
Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, it's not intended to insert more stats, but to get the raw data out
for external analysis during development and testing of applications and
systems etc.
Mph --- the proposal was very poorly titled then. In any case, it still
sounds like a one-off hack
Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is this still a serious issue with LDC? I share Greg Stark's concern that
we're
going to end up wasting a lot of writes.
I think that's Greg Smith's concern. I do think it's something that needs to
be measured and watched for. It'll take some serious
Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, it's not intended to insert more stats, but to get the raw data out
for external analysis during development and testing of applications and
systems etc.
Mph --- the proposal was very poorly titled then. In any case, it still
sounds
Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Mph --- the proposal was very poorly titled then. In any case, it still
sounds like a one-off hack that would be equally well served by a local
patch.
It's certainly not intended as a one-off hack, but as a way of analysing
the behaviour
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So far it sounds terribly badly designed --- for starters, apparently it's
intending to ignore the stats aggregation/reporting infrastructure and
reinvent that wheel in some unspecified way, for unspecified reasons.
One way to accomplish the original goal
Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Mph --- the proposal was very poorly titled then. In any case, it still
sounds like a one-off hack that would be equally well served by a local
patch.
It's certainly not intended as a one-off hack, but as a way of
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One way to accomplish the original goal by using the stats
aggregation/reporting infrastructure directly would be to add a stats_domain
guc which stats messages get tagged with. So you could have each application
domain set the guc to a different value
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Jim Nasby wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007, at 11:57 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
I have a complete set of working code that tracks buffer usage
statistics...
Even if it's not used by bgwriter for self-tuning, having that information
available would be very useful for anyone trying to
buen viaje :-)
On 6/29/07, David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 11:25:31AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
For anyone who cares ...
I will be on vacation in Spain for the next two weeks, and only
Bon voyage! :)
Cheers,
D
sporadically in electronic contact.
cheers
30 matches
Mail list logo
