Re: [HACKERS] checkpointer continuous flushing - V18

Hallo Andres, In some previous version I think a warning was shown if the feature was requested but not available. I think we should either silently ignore it, or error out. Warnings somewhere in the background aren't particularly meaningful. I like "ignoring with a warning" in the log

Re: [HACKERS] Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Amit Kapila > wrote: > >> >> Client_Count/Patch_Ver 1 64 128 256 >> HEAD(481725c0) 963 28145 28593 26447 >> Patch-1 938 28152 31703 29402 >> >> >> We can see

Re: [HACKERS] Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > Client_Count/Patch_Ver 1 64 128 256 > HEAD(481725c0) 963 28145 28593 26447 > Patch-1 938 28152 31703 29402 > > > We can see 10~11% performance improvement as observed > previously. You might see 0.02% performance

Re: [HACKERS] Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers

On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > Very Good Catch. I think if we want to address this we can detect > > the non-group leader transactions that tries to update the

Re: [HACKERS] checkpointer continuous flushing - V18

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> The documentation seems to use "flush" but the code talks about "writeback" >> or "flush", depending. I think one vocabulary, whichever it is, should be >> chosen and everything should stick to it, otherwise everything

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Add generate_series(date, date) and generate_series(date, date, integer)

On 2 February 2016 at 18:01, Corey Huinker wrote: > Doh, I left that comment to myself in there. :) > > The corresponding structs in timestamp.c and int.c have no comment, so > suggestions of what should be there are welcome. In the interim I put in > this: > > /* state

Re: [HACKERS] Spurious standby query cancellations

On 24 December 2015 at 20:15, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Jeff Janes > wrote: > >> > >> On further thought, neither do I. The attached patch

Re: [HACKERS] Additional role attributes && superuser review

On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 01:44:28PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > pg_monitor > > > > Allows roles granted more information from pg_stat_activity. Can't be > > just a regular non-default-role right as we don't,

Re: [HACKERS] Deferrable check constraints

Jeff Janes writes: > I recently wished for deferrable check constraints while doing some > crash-recovery stress testing. > I don't know how important they would be for real-world cases, but the > SQL standard does seem to require them, so I think they would be > desirable

[HACKERS] Deferrable check constraints

I recently wished for deferrable check constraints while doing some crash-recovery stress testing. I don't know how important they would be for real-world cases, but the SQL standard does seem to require them, so I think they would be desirable just for that reason. There isn't an entry for this

Re: [HACKERS] Tutorial document

>> "most likely the case if you installed >> PostgreSQL instance yourself" > > Should read "most likely the case if you installed the > PostgreSQL instance yourself". > No particular objection otherwise. Thanks for the suggestion. I have just committed to the all supported branches. Best

[HACKERS] Release 4.17 of the PostgreSQL Buildfarm client

I have just cut release 4.17 of the PostgreSQL Buildfarm client. It is available at . Changes of note: * use PGCTLTIMEOUT instead of hardcoded timeout settings * shipped config file is renamed to build-farm.conf.sample to avoid

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Generic WAL logical messages

On 23.01.2016 01:22, Petr Jelinek wrote: Hi, here is updated version of this patch, calling the messages logical (decoding) messages consistently everywhere and removing any connection to standby messages. Moving this to it's own module gave me place to write some brief explanation about this

Re: [HACKERS] checkpointer continuous flushing - V18

Hi, On 2016-02-20 20:56:31 +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote: > >* Currently *_flush_after can be set to a nonzero value, even if there's > > no support for flushing on that platform. Imo that's ok, but perhaps > > other people's opinion differ. > > In some previous version I think a warning was shown

Re: [HACKERS] checkpointer continuous flushing - V18

Hello Andres, For 0001 I've recently changed: * Don't schedule writeback after smgrextend() - that defeats linux delayed allocation mechanism, increasing fragmentation noticeably. * Add docs for the new GUC variables * comment polishing * BackendWritebackContext now isn't dynamically

Re: [HACKERS] Tutorial document

Tatsuo Ishii writes: > What about changing the line to: > "most likely the case if you installed > PostgreSQL instance yourself" Should read "most likely the case if you installed the PostgreSQL instance yourself". No particular objection otherwise.

[HACKERS] Tutorial document

>From doc/src/start.sgml: -- mydb=# That would mean you are a database superuser, which is most likely the case if you installed PostgreSQL yourself. Being a superuser means that you are not subject to access controls. For the

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Catalin Iacob wrote: > On 2/9/16, Tom Lane wrote: > > FWIW, I think it would be a good thing if the NOTIFY statement syntax > were > > not remarkably different from the syntax used in the pg_notify() function > >

Re: [HACKERS] Spurious standby query cancellations

On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > >> > >> On further thought, neither do I. The attached patch

Re: [HACKERS] [JDBC] JDBC behaviour

On 20 February 2016 at 12:40, Sridhar N Bamandlapally wrote: > Hi All > > I understand your point, > > may be I didn't understand everyone or everyone didn't understand me > Sounds like it. > one feature of PostgreSQL is implemented into another feature of Java ( i >

Re: [HACKERS] custom function for converting human readable sizes to bytes

On 18 February 2016 at 10:05, Dean Rasheed wrote: > OK, I'll add a check for that. > Thanks for testing. > Pushed, with a catversion bump. Regards, Dean -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] Typo in bufmgr.c that result in waste of memory

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On February 19, 2016 2:42:08 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Lane > wrote: >>> I think we should fix it, but not backpatch. >> >>I don't think that's particularly good policy. It's a clear bug, why >>would we not