> This patch fails to apply to HEAD, please submit a rebased version. I've
> marked this as as Waiting on Author.
Sorry for my absence. Unfortunately I couldn't have time to work on this patch
in this cf.
I believe I will be back in next cf, work on this patch and also review other
patches.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 9:49 PM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 01:34:11AM +0000, imai.yoshik...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 5:28 PM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > > I don't think that's a correct assumption. I obviously didn't read
> &g
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 5:28 PM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 03:04:00AM -0700, legrand legrand wrote:
> > imai.yoshik...@fujitsu.com wrote
> > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 6:37 PM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > >> That's very interesting feedback, th
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 6:37 PM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 1:11 PM Marco Slot wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 11:31 AM Julien Rouhaud
> wrote:
> > > There's at least the current version of IVM patchset that lacks the
> > > querytext. Looking at various extensions, I see
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:31 AM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > * bufusage still only counts the buffer usage during executor.
> >
> > Now we have the ability to count the buffer usage during planner but we
> keep
> > the bufusage count the buffer usage during executor for now.
>
> The bufusage
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 6:31 AM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 05:28:38AM +0000, imai.yoshik...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > Hi Julien,
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 10:32 AM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 01:26:19PM -0700, legrand
Hi Julien,
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 10:32 AM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 01:26:19PM -0700, legrand legrand wrote:
> > Please consider PG13 shortest path ;o)
> >
> > My one is parse->queryId != UINT64CONST(0) in pgss_planner_hook().
> > It fixes IVM problem (verified),
> > and
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:39 AM, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> Hello. I had a brief look on this and have some comments on this.
Hi, Horiguchi-san. Thank you for looking at this!
> It uses its own hash implement. Aside from the appropriateness of
> having another implement of existing tool, in
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 11:59 AM, 王胜利 wrote:
>I am glad to know you are working on PG accumulated statistics
> feature, and I am interested on it.
>I see these two patch file you made, can you let me know which branch
> of PG code based?
>
>when I use this:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 5:42 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > It seems performance difference is big in case of read only tests. The
> > reason is that write time is relatively longer than the
> > processing time of the logic I added in the patch.
>
> That's going to be a pretty difficult performance
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 5:50 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> today I run 120 5minutes pgbench tests to measure impact of this patch.
> Result is attached.
...
> Thanks to Tomas Vondra and 2ndq for hw for testing
Thank you for doing a lot of these benchmarks!
> The result is interesting - when I run
>From tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com
> What is concerned about is that the need to erase and delete the data file
> would be forgotten if the server crashes during step
> 3. If so, postmaster can do the job at startup, just like it deletes
> temporary files (although it delays the startup.)
I
On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 1:10 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 05:55:28AM +,
> imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)fujitsu(dot)com wrote:
> > And here is the patch which counts the wait event and measuring the wait
> > event time. It is currently like POC and has several things to be
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 4:55 PM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 2:06 AM imai.yoshik...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 2:27 PM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 2:00 AM imai.yoshik...@fujitsu.com
> > >
Hi Thomas,
Please let me ask something about wraparound problem.
+static FullTransactionId
+convert_xid(TransactionId xid, FullTransactionId next_fxid)
{
- uint64 epoch;
+ TransactionId next_xid = XidFromFullTransactionId(next_fxid);
+ uint32 epoch =
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 2:27 PM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 2:00 AM imai.yoshik...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > Actually I also don't have strong opinion but I thought someone would
> > complain about renaming of those columns and
> also some tool
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:50 AM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM imai.yoshik...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 1:36 PM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > >
> > > I attach v3 patches implementing those counters.
> >
On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 1:36 PM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 3:31 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 5:35 AM imai.yoshik...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sept 10, 2019 at 11:27 PM, Juli
On Tue, Sept 10, 2019 at 11:27 PM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > [0002 patch]
> > In pgss_planner_hook:
> >
> > + /* calc differences of buffer counters. */
> > + bufusage = compute_buffer_counters(bufusage_start,
> > pgBufferUsage);
> > +
> > + /*
> > +
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 5:51 AM, imai.yoshik...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> The overhead which is induced by getting wait event info was discussed from
> old times, but I couldn't find the actual
> measuring results, so I want to measure its overhead.
And here is the patch which counts the w
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:14 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
[ ... absent for a long time ]
I read the discussions of this thread.
If we want wait event info, we can currently do sampling from pg_stat_activity
and get pseudo wait event total duration.
(I understand wait event sampling does
Hi Dhruv,
On Sun, June 30, 2019 at 7:30 AM, Goel, Dhruv wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 2019, at 1:20 PM, Goel, Dhruv wrote:
> >> On Jun 9, 2019, at 5:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Andres Freund writes:
> >>> On June 9, 2019 8:36:37 AM PDT, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think you are mistaken that doing
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:09 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I saw this and updated our scripts with pg_restore -f-
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/release-12.html
> |In pg_restore, require specification of -f - to send the dump contents to
> standard output (Euler Taveira)
> |Previously,
Moon-san, kuroda.keisuke-san
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 8:20 AM, Moon, Insung wrote:
> =# CREATE INDEX foo_idx ON foo USING gin (i jsonb_ops);
> =# SELECT * FROM gin_metapage_info(get_raw_page('foo_idx', 0)) WITH
> (fastupdate=off);
This is not important thing but some mistakes are here.
=#
24 matches
Mail list logo
