Tatsuo Ishii [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have seen problems with extremely many concurrent users.
I run pgbench:
pgbench -c 1000 -t 1 test
And I get stuck spin lock errors. This is 100% reproducable (i.e. I
have nerver succeeded in pgbench -c 1000).
Is it actually stuck, or just
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 01:39:38PM +0200, RISKO Gergely wrote:
Hello!
I saaw your patch for 7.0.2, but it is hard to port to 7.1.2 for me,
because I haven't got any knowlendge in postgresql programming.
Can you give me a nocreatetable patch for postgres 7.1.2?
I'd like, but I unsure with
Tatsuo Ishii [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If it is stuck, on which lock(s)?
How can I check it?
The 'stuck' message should at least give you a code location...
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you
Sorry, I have decided not to follow the SQL standard ;-) PRIVILEGE is spelled
correctly in my patch.
This patch will implement the ENABLE PRIVILEGE and DISABLE PRIVILEGE
commands in PL/pgSQL, which, respectively, change the effective uid to that
of the function owner and back. It doesn't break
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes:
I followed the instructions on interfacing user defined types as per
http://www.ca.postgresql.org/devel-corner/docs/programmer/xindex.html.
In fact I helped write that page so I am pretty sure I got it right.
This code worked fine before. The only
Incrementing comand counter is not enough - dirty reads are required
to handle concurrent PK updates.
What's that with you and dirty reads? Every so often you tell
me that something would require them - you really like to
read dirty things - no? :-)
Dirty things occure -
Ed Loehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
* ANALYZE is now available as a separate command; you can run it without
also doing a VACUUM. (Of course, VACUUM ANALYZE still works.)
What is the impact of this newly isolated ANALYZE command on the need
and/or frequency for VACUUMs?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes:
Obviously it isn't. Care to show us the code?
Sure. ftp://ftp.vex.net/pub/glaccount.
PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1(glaccount_cmp);
Datum
glaccount_cmp(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
glaccount *a1 = (glaccount *) PG_GETARG_POINTER(0);
glaccount *a2 =
Awhile ago I said that I wanted to create a new flavor of table-level
lock for concurrent VACUUM to get on a table. RowExclusiveLock is
not the right thing because it is not self-exclusive, whereas we don't
want more than one VACUUM mangling a table at a time. But anything
higher locks out
Any better ideas out there?
Names were always hard for me -:)
Where did the existing lock type names
come from, anyway? (Not SQL92 or SQL99, for sure.)
Oracle. Except for Access Exclusive/Share Locks.
Vadim
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6:
Tom Lane wrote:
Awhile ago I said that I wanted to create a new flavor of table-level
lock for concurrent VACUUM to get on a table. RowExclusiveLock is
not the right thing because it is not self-exclusive, whereas we don't
want more than one VACUUM mangling a table at a time. But anything
Thomas Swan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that type of lock would best be kept to the system level.
Why?
I don't have a scenario offhand where it'd be useful, but if we've
discovered it's useful for VACUUM then there may be cases where a lock
with these properties would be useful to
Tatsuo Ishii [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If it is stuck, on which lock(s)?
How can I check it?
The 'stuck' message should at least give you a code location...
Here is the actual message:
FATAL: s_lock(0x2ac2d016) at spin.c:158, stuck spinlock. Aborting.
Last several queries before
Tatsuo Ishii [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How can I check it?
The 'stuck' message should at least give you a code location...
FATAL: s_lock(0x2ac2d016) at spin.c:158, stuck spinlock. Aborting.
Hmm, that's SpinAcquire, so it's one of the predefined spinlocks
(and not, say, a buffer spinlock).
Tatsuo Ishii [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How can I check it?
The 'stuck' message should at least give you a code location...
FATAL: s_lock(0x2ac2d016) at spin.c:158, stuck spinlock. Aborting.
Hmm, that's SpinAcquire, so it's one of the predefined spinlocks
(and not, say, a buffer
15 matches
Mail list logo
