On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:42 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > Hm. In my mental model it would be useful for barrier "processors" to
> > not acknowledge the state change at certain points. Imagine e.g. needing
> > to efficiently wait till all backends have processed a config file
> > reload - since we don
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 8:57 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 1:38 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 2:54 PM Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > > I'd either add a test (if we have some) or placeholder kind
> > > initially. But I'd also be ok with going for either of the o
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 1:38 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 2:54 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > I'd either add a test (if we have some) or placeholder kind
> > initially. But I'd also be ok with going for either of the other
> > versions directly - but it seems harder to tackle the
Hi
> Andrew Gierth complained about this too over on -committers, and I saw
> his message first and pushed a fix. It includes the first and third
> hunks from your proposed patch, but not the second one.
Yep, I received his email just after sending mine. Thanks, my build is clean
now.
regards,
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 1:44 PM Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> > Stellar. If nobody objects in the meantime, I plan to commit 0001-0003
> > next week.
>
> My compiler (gcc 8.3.0) is not happy with recent
> 5910d6c7e311f0b14e3d3cb9ce3597c01d3a3cde commit:
>
> autovacuum.c:831:1: error: ‘AutoVacLauncherS
Hello
> Stellar. If nobody objects in the meantime, I plan to commit 0001-0003
> next week.
My compiler (gcc 8.3.0) is not happy with recent
5910d6c7e311f0b14e3d3cb9ce3597c01d3a3cde commit:
autovacuum.c:831:1: error: ‘AutoVacLauncherShutdown’ was used with no prototype
before its definition [-
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 2:54 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> I'd either add a test (if we have some) or placeholder kind
> initially. But I'd also be ok with going for either of the other
> versions directly - but it seems harder to tackle the patches together.
OK. I have committed 0001-0003 as I had m
Hi,
On 2019-12-11 13:35:26 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> While I have passionate philosophical feelings about this topic, for
> purposes of the present thread the really important question (IMV,
> anyway) is whether there's any way of getting a patch for global
> barriers committed in advance of the
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 12:38 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> I just don't buy this argument. There's a difference in between an
> unpatched version of postgres suddenly potentially running hooks
> everywhere CFI() etc is called, and some user patching postgres to
> behave differently. In the former cas
Hi,
On 2019-12-11 09:12:49 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 7:37 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > I sort of like the callback idea conceptually, but Andres is making a good
> > point about the extensibility actually making it harder to reason about.
>
> That objection doesn't ho
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 7:37 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> I've read through the patchset and played around with it to try and break it
> and understand it (not in that order). Being a bit out of my comfort zone, I
> can't offer the deep insights that Andres has done; but in reading the code it
>
> On 9 Dec 2019, at 16:42, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 12:17 PM Andres Freund wrote:
I've read through the patchset and played around with it to try and break it
and understand it (not in that order). Being a bit out of my comfort zone, I
can't offer the deep insights that Andre
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 12:17 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > 0001 is just a code movement patch. It puts the interrupt handling for
> > each type of background process into a subroutine, instead of having
> > it all inline in the main loop. I feel this makes things more clear.
> > Hopefully it's uncon
Hi,
Thanks for the updated version!
On 2019-12-02 13:06:24 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 8:38 AM Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > I'm definitely happy to work with it, but I did not and do not feel I have
> > the skills for doing the "proper review" needed for it. So I am also v
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 8:38 AM Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I'm definitely happy to work with it, but I did not and do not feel I have
> the skills for doing the "proper review" needed for it. So I am also very
> happy for you to pick it up and run with it.
OK, here's what I came up with.
0001 is
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:26 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On the other hand, 0002 seems like it's pretty clearly a good idea. It
> makes a whole bunch of auxiliary processes use
> procsignal_sigusr1_handler() and those things all get called from
> AuxiliaryProcessMain(), which does ProcSignalInit(), a
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 8:45 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-11-13 12:26:34 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > TL;DR: I'm not sure that we need 0001; I propose to commit 0002; and I
> > have some concerns about 0003 and am interested in working further on
> > it.
>
> Thanks for looking at th
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 2:45 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> I might be missing something. Aren't all of the places where those
> checks are places where we currently can't do a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()?
> I've swapped this thoroughly out of my mind, but going through them:
>
> 1) AutoVacLauncherMain() -
Hi,
On 2019-11-13 12:26:34 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> TL;DR: I'm not sure that we need 0001; I propose to commit 0002; and I
> have some concerns about 0003 and am interested in working further on
> it.
Thanks for looking at the patch!
> 0001 changes the StartBackgroundWorker so that the SIGIN
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 1:17 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> The patch definitely is in a prototype stage. At the very least it needs
> a high-level comment somewhere, and some of the lower-level code needs
> to be cleaned up.
>
> One thing I wasn't happy about is how checksum internals have to absorb
>
Hi,
On 2019-07-10 15:31:11 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> In re-reading this, I notice there are a lot of references to Intterrupt
> (with two t). I'm guessing this is just a spelling error, and not something
> that actually conveys some meaning?
Just a spelling error. I think I wrote the patch
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 6:16 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Magnus cornered me at pgconf.eu and asked me whether I could prototype
> the "barriers" I'd been talking about in the online checksumming thread.
>
> The problem there was to make sure that all processes, backends and
> auxiliary proc
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 2:22 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-12-27 13:54:34 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Finally getting around to playing with this one and it unfortunately
> > doesn't apply anymore (0003).
> >
> > I think it's just a matter of adding those two rows though, right?
Hi,
On 2018-12-27 13:54:34 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Finally getting around to playing with this one and it unfortunately
> doesn't apply anymore (0003).
>
> I think it's just a matter of adding those two rows though, right? That is,
> it's not an actual conflict it's just something else ad
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 6:16 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Magnus cornered me at pgconf.eu and asked me whether I could prototype
> the "barriers" I'd been talking about in the online checksumming thread.
>
> The problem there was to make sure that all processes, backends and
> auxiliary proc
25 matches
Mail list logo
