* Robert Treat:
Would it be unfair to assert that people who want checksums but aren't
willing to pay the cost of running a filesystem that provides
checksums aren't going to be willing to make the cost/benefit trade
off that will be asked for? Yes, it is unfair of course, but it's
I would chip in and say that I would prefer sticking to well-known proved
filesystems like xfs/ext4 and let the application do the checksumming.
Yes, that's a different way of putting my concern. If you want a proven
file system with checksumming (and an fsck), options are really quite
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Why does walrestore need to be invoked even when restore_command is
not specified? It seems to be useless. We invoke walreceiver only when
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Why does walrestore need to be invoked even when restore_command is
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 11:34 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
To make the walreceiver call WaitLatchOrSocket(), we would need to
merge it and libpq_select() into one function. But the former is the
backend
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll proceed to commit for this now.
Thanks a lot!
Can I just check a few things?
You say
/*
+* Update full_page_writes in shared memory and write an
+* XLOG_FPW_CHANGE record before resource manager
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll proceed to commit for this now.
Thanks a lot!
Can I just check a few things?
Just to clarify, not expecting another patch version, just
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm afraid I could not understand your idea. Could you explain it in
more detail?
We either tell libpqwalreceiver about the latch, or we tell
walreceiver about the socket used by libpqwalreceiver.
In either case we
Hi!
New version of patch is attached.
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
A few comments:
* In range_gist_picksplit, it would be nice to have a little bit more
intuitive description of what's going on with the nonEmptyCount and
nonInfCount numbers. For
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org wrote:
** pgbench, permanent tables, scale factor 100, 300 s **
1 group-commit-2012-01-21 614.425851 -10.4%
8 group-commit-2012-01-21 4705.129896 +6.3%
16 group-commit-2012-01-21 7962.131701 +2.0%
24 group-commit-2012-01-21
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that you're getting anything with that user facing
complexity. The only realistic case I can see for explicit control of
wire formats chosen is to defend your application from format changes
in the server
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
Things are still a bit ugly in the more complex cases: consider
PostGIS's linkage against libproj and other libraries. In order to
cover all cases, I feel that what I need is an optional hook (for the
same of argument,
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
On Jan 20, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
So, you're proposing that we remove freelist altogether? Sounds reasonable,
but that needs to be performance tested somehow. I'm not sure what exactly
the test should
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:02 AM, jes...@krogh.cc wrote:
* Robert Treat:
Would it be unfair to assert that people who want checksums but aren't
willing to pay the cost of running a filesystem that provides
checksums aren't going to be willing to make the cost/benefit trade
off that will be
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
We should also look at having the freelist
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The real
problem there is that BufFreelistLock is also used to protect the
clock sweep pointer.
Agreed
I think basically we gotta find a way to allow
multiple backends to run clock sweeps concurrently. Or else fix
things
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Robert Treat r...@xzilla.net wrote:
And yes, I would for sure turn such functionality on if it were present.
That's nice to say, but most people aren't willing to take a 50%
performance hit. Not saying what we end up with will be that bad, but
I've seen
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but OP is proposing to use multiple threads inside the forked
execution process. That's a completely different beast. Many other
databases support parallel execution of a single query and it might
very well be
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that you're getting anything with that user facing
complexity. The only realistic case I can see for explicit control of
wire
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 04:56:24PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Hm. Leaf pages hold as much tuples as non-leaf pages, no? I mean
for each page element there's a value and a CTID. In non-leaf those
CTIDs point to other
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I doubt it. Almost nothing in the backend is thread-safe. You can't
acquire a heavyweight lock, a lightweight lock, or a spinlock. You
can't do anything that might elog() or ereport(). None of those
things are reentrant.
Not to mention palloc,
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I doubt it. Almost nothing in the backend is thread-safe. You can't
acquire a heavyweight lock, a lightweight lock, or a spinlock. You
can't do anything that might elog() or
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
So, here are three patches that could solve this issue.
pg-cassert-unused-attribute.patch, the one I already showed, using
__attribute__((unused).
pg-cassert-unused-ifdef.patch, using only additional #ifdef
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Spraying the code with __attribute__((unused)) is somewhat undesirable
because it could mask a failure to properly initialize the variable in
an assert-enabled build.
Ouch. Is it really true that __attribute__((unused)) disables detection
of use of
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Spraying the code with __attribute__((unused)) is somewhat undesirable
because it could mask a failure to properly initialize the variable in
an assert-enabled build.
Ouch. Is it
On Jan 24, 2012, at 9:15 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Robert Treat r...@xzilla.net wrote:
And yes, I would for sure turn such functionality on if it were present.
That's nice to say, but most people aren't willing to take a 50%
performance hit. Not saying what we
Hello,
The call for papers for PgNext (the old PgWest/PgEast) is now open:
January 19th: Talk submission opens
April 15th: Talk submission closes
April 30th: Speaker notification
Submit: https://www.postgresqlconference.org/talk_types
Sincerely,
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. -
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
Our current protocol allocates a 2-byte integer for the purposes of
specifying the type of each parameter, and another 2-byte integer for
the purpose of specifying the result type... but only one bit is
really needed at
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Ouch. Is it really true that __attribute__((unused)) disables detection
of use of uninitialized variables?
Oh, I think maybe I am confused. The downsides of disabling *unused*
I wrote:
Also, it occurs to me that an intermediate macro
PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY would be a good idea, first because it
documents *why* you want to mark the variable as possibly unused,
and second because changing the macro definition would provide an easy way
to check for totally-unused
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wrote:
Also, it occurs to me that an intermediate macro
PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY would be a good idea, first because it
documents *why* you want to mark the variable as possibly unused,
and second because changing the macro
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Julien Tachoires jul...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/12/15 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
Uhm, surely you could compare the original toast tablespace to the heap
tablespace, and if they differ, handle appropriately when creating the
new toast table?
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Yes, that's what I meant when I suggested it originally. I'm just not
sure it's any nicer than adding ifdefs for USE_ASSERT_CHECKING.
I'm inclined to think that it probably is nicer, just because of less
vertical space used. But again, this opinion is
What date venue?
On Tuesday, January 24, 2012, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Hello,
The call for papers for PgNext (the old PgWest/PgEast) is now open:
January 19th: Talk submission opens
April 15th: Talk submission closes
April 30th: Speaker notification
Submit:
On tor, 2012-01-19 at 15:44 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On mån, 2012-01-02 at 06:32 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I think I would like to have a set of GUC parameters to control the
location of the server-side SSL
On 01/24/2012 07:36 PM, Dave Page wrote:
What date venue?
On Tuesday, January 24, 2012, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Hello,
The call for papers for PgNext (the old PgWest/PgEast) is now open:
January 19th: Talk submission opens
April 15th: Talk submission closes
April
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Yes, it might be too hard, but lets look.
Your committer has timed out ;-)
committed write mode only
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training
Early yesterday morning, I was able to use Nate Boley's test machine
do a single 30-minute pgbench run at scale factor 300 using a variety
of trees built with various patches, and with the -l option added to
track latency on a per-transaction basis. All tests were done using
32 clients and
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I do wonder whether we are making a mountain out of a mole-hill here,
though. If I properly understand the proposal on the table, which
it's possible that I don't, but if I do, the new format is
self-identifying: when
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
do a single 30-minute pgbench run at scale factor 300 using a variety
Nice
A minor but necessary point: Repeated testing of the Group commit
patch when you have synch commit off is clearly pointless, so
publishing
I took my first stab at hacking the sources to fix the bug reported here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2012-01/msg00152.php
It's such a simple patch but it took me several hours with Google and IRC
and I'm sure I did many things wrong. It seems to work as advertised,
though, so I'm
My test was run with synchronous_commit=off, so I didn't expect the
group commit patch to have much of an impact. I included it mostly to
see whether by chance it helped anyway (since it also helps other WAL
flushes, not just commits) or whether it caused any regression.
Oh, I see.
One
Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I do wonder whether we are making a mountain out of a mole-hill here,
though. If I properly understand the proposal on the table, which
it's possible that I don't, but if I do,
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Well, the bytea experience was IMNSHO a complete disaster (It was
earlier mentioned that jdbc clients were silently corrupting bytea
datums) and should be held up as an example of how *not* to do things;
Yeah. In both cases,
I have applied the attached patch to git head to fix the new SQL tablespace
location function usage in pg_upgrade to properly check cluster version
numbers, and a fix missing table alias.
I found this problem during testing.
--
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 07:01:46AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tor, 2012-01-19 at 17:04 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
For that reason, I wonder if I should just hard-code the plpython
rename into the pg_upgrade test in check_loadable_libraries().
Yes, I haven't come up with a better
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
I spent some time cleaning this up. Details below, but here are the
highlights:
* Reverted the removal of wal_writer_delay
* Removed heuristic on big flushes
No contested viewpoints on anything
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:23 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Early yesterday morning, I was able to use Nate Boley's test machine
do a single 30-minute pgbench run at scale factor 300 using a variety
of trees built with various patches, and with the -l option added to
track
On Tuesday, January 24, 2012, Stefan Kaltenbrunner ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc
wrote:
On 01/24/2012 07:36 PM, Dave Page wrote:
What date venue?
On Tuesday, January 24, 2012, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
Hello,
The call for papers for PgNext (the old PgWest/PgEast) is now
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Add new replication mode synchronous_commit = 'write'.
Replication occurs only to memory on standby, not to disk,
so provides additional
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Yes, it might be too hard, but lets look.
Your committer has timed out ;-)
committed write mode only
Thanks for the commit!
The apply
53 matches
Mail list logo
