[HACKERS] Server maintenance

2007-11-19 Thread Dave Page
postgresql01.managed.contegix.com and therefore developer.pgadmin.org and nagios.pgadmin.org will be going down for maintenance sometime shortly after 9AM GMT today. Downtime is expected to be around 15 minutes. Apologies for the short notice. Regards, Dave ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: New versions of mingw have gettimeofday(), so add an autoconf

2007-11-19 Thread Kris Jurka
Magnus Hagander wrote: Log Message: --- New versions of mingw have gettimeofday(), so add an autoconf test for this. Can we backport this fix? I'm trying to setup a new windows build environment and this is currently halting my progress for back branches. Kris Jurka

Re: [HACKERS] Spinlock backoff algorithm

2007-11-19 Thread Zdenek Kotala
Gregory Stark wrote: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mark Mielke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: My goodness that's a hardware-dependent proposal. Shall we discuss how many CPUs there are where an integer division is *slower* than a floating-point op? Do you have one in mind,

Re: [HACKERS] VACUUM/ANALYZE counting of in-doubt tuples

2007-11-19 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: On further thought though, that's not the whole story, and in fact VACUUM itself isn't doing very well at accounting for in-doubt tuples. The current implementation is that whatever live and dead tuple totals are arrived at by a VACUUM or ANALYZE are sent to the stats

Re: [HACKERS] LDC - Load Distributed Checkpoints with PG8.3b2 on Solaris

2007-11-19 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Gregory Stark wrote: Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: Looking at the autovacuum log output, 2007-11-13 09:21:19.830 PST 9458 LOG: automatic vacuum of table specdb.public.txn_log_table: index scans: 1 pages: 11 removed, 105 remain

Re: [HACKERS] VACUUM/ANALYZE counting of in-doubt tuples

2007-11-19 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: On further thought though, that's not the whole story, and in fact VACUUM itself isn't doing very well at accounting for in-doubt tuples. How about this: let's have VACUUM send a message at the start of processing the table. pgstats

Re: [HACKERS] VACUUM/ANALYZE counting of in-doubt tuples

2007-11-19 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 10:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: On further thought though, that's not the whole story, and in fact VACUUM itself isn't doing very well at accounting for in-doubt tuples. How about this: let's have VACUUM send a

Re: [HACKERS] VACUUM/ANALYZE counting of in-doubt tuples

2007-11-19 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 10:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: The race conditions are a lot more subtle than that. The stats collector cannot know when it receives a tabstat message after VACUUM starts whether VACUUM has/will see the tuples involved, or whether it

Re: [HACKERS] VACUUM/ANALYZE counting of in-doubt tuples

2007-11-19 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 13:33 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 10:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: The race conditions are a lot more subtle than that. The stats collector cannot know when it receives a tabstat message after VACUUM starts whether

Re: [HACKERS] Terminal width for help output

2007-11-19 Thread Guillaume Lelarge
Alvaro Herrera a écrit : Peter Eisentraut wrote: Do we care to maintain a maximum width for programs' --help output (and psql's \?)? I think 79 characters was once a recommendation (or perhaps 72), but we have a couple of violations either way, which I'd like to fix, but what to? 79

Re: [HACKERS] Terminal width for help output

2007-11-19 Thread Sam Mason
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 06:56:06PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Do we care to maintain a maximum width for programs' --help output (and psql's \?)? I think 79 characters was once a recommendation (or perhaps 72), but we have a couple of violations either