I have a C function (a trigger function) which uses the PG_TRY()
construct to handle certain ERROR conditions.
One example is where invoked as INSTEAD OF INSERT into a view. It
PG_TRYs INSERT into the real base table,
but this table may not yet exist (it is a partitioned child of an
inheritanc
My cut'n'pasting failed me at one point corrected below.
> discussion about what is the difference between a synchronous read
> versus an asynchronous read as far as non-originator waiting on it is
> concerned.
>
> I thought a bit more about this. There are currently two differences,
> one of
Asynchronous IO - proposal and patch
>
> On 06/24/2014 04:29 PM, John Lumby wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:43 PM, John Lumby wrote:
>>>> It is when some *other* backend gets there first with the ReadBuffer that
>>>> things are a bit trickier. The current version
ers@postgresql.org
>
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:43 PM, John Lumby wrote:
>> It is when some *other* backend gets there first with the ReadBuffer that
>> things are a bit trickier. The current version of the patch did polling for
>> that case
>> but that drew critic
> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 15:43:44 -0300
> Subject: Re: Extended Prefetching using Asynchronous IO - proposal and patch
> From: klaussfre...@gmail.com
> To: st...@mit.edu
> CC: hlinnakan...@vmware.com; johnlu...@hotmail.com;
> pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Thanks Fujii , that is a bug -- an #ifdef USE_PREFETCH is missing in
heapam.c
(maybe several)
I will fix it in the next patch version.
I also appreciate it is not easy to review the patch.
There are really 4 (or maybe 5) parts :
. async io (librt functions)
. buffer ma
> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 18:00:28 -0300
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Extended Prefetching using Asynchronous IO - proposal
> and patch
> From: klaussfre...@gmail.com
> To: hlinnakan...@vmware.com
> CC: johnlu...@hotmail.com; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
>
> >>>
> >>> Even if it worked on Linux tod
> From: t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
> To: klaussfre...@gmail.com
> CC: hlinnakan...@vmware.com; johnlu...@hotmail.com;
> pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Extended Prefetching using Asynchronous IO - proposal
> and patch
> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 17:56:57 -0400
>
> Claudio Freire wr
2014 at 5:39 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
> > On 05/29/2014 11:34 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 05/29/2014 04:12 PM, John Lumby wrote:
> >>&
I have pasted below the EXPLAIN of one of my benchmark queries
(the one I reference in the README).
Plenty of nested loop joins.
However I think I understand your question as to how effective it would be
if the outer is not sorted, and I will see if I can dig into that
if I get time (and it s
>
> On 05/28/2014 11:52 PM, John Lumby wrote:
> >
>
> The patch seems to assume that you can put the aiocb struct in shared
> memory, initiate an asynchronous I/O request from one process, and wait
> for its completion from another process. I'm pretty surprised if th
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 09:59:08AM -0400, John Lumby wrote:
> > However,the OP describes an implementation based on libaio.
> > Today what we have (for linux) is librt, which is quite different.
>
> Well, good thing we didn't switch to
Claudio Freire wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> > On 11/1/12 6:13 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> >
> >> posix_fadvise what's the trouble there, but the fact that the kernel
> >> stops doing read-ahead when a call to posix_fadvise comes. I noticed
> >> the performance h
Claudio wrote :
>
> Check the latest patch, it contains heap page prefetching too.
>
Oh yes I see. I missed that - I was looking in the wrong place.
I do have one question about the way you did it : by placing the
prefetch heap-page calls in _bt_next, which effectively means inside
a call from th
Claudio wrote :
>
> Oops - forgot to effectively attach the patch.
>
I've read through your patch and the earlier posts by you and Cédric.
This is very interesting. You chose to prefetch index btree (key-ptr) pages
whereas I chose to prefetch the data pages pointed to by the key-ptr pages.
> From: Claudio Freire
> I hope I'm not talking to myself.
Indeed not. I also looked into prefetching for pure index scans for b-trees
(and extension to use async io).
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/BLU0-SMTP31709961D846CCF4F5EB4C2A3930%40phx.gbl
I am not where I have a proper se
First, apologies for taking so long to reply to your post.
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:55:13, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:24 PM, John Lumby
> wrote:
> > An INSERT which has a RETURNING clause and which is to be rewritten
> >based on
> > a rule
---
Problem I'm trying to solve:
For partitioned tables, make it possible to use RETURNING clause on INSERT
INTO
together with DO INSTEAD rule
[ Note - wherever I say INSERT I also mean UPDATE and DELETE ]
---
Cu
18 matches
Mail list logo
