On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 12:12:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As the number of tuples between CTID_INDEX_MIN and CTID_INDEX_MAX is
finite, they must be added in finite time, by which time the index will
be up-to-date and usable for querie planner. (i.e.
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 05:00:36PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
I'm working over the kerberos service principal name patch that's in
the queue to make it good enough for application. During which I noticed
it touches both kerberos 4 and kerberos 5 code, which leads me to two
questions:
1)
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 11:20:12PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Basically we do open_datasync - fdatasync - fsync. This is
empirically what we found to be fastest on most operating systems, and
we default to the first one that exists on the operating system.
Notice we never default to
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 10:02:22AM +1100, Neil Conway wrote:
Kenneth Marshall wrote:
GEQO is an attempt to provide a near-optimal join order without using
an exhaustive search. An exhaustive, deterministic search of a subset
of the search space has a non-zero probability of finding only
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 05:40:40PM +1100, Neil Conway wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Yes, and it's been rejected. The notion is obviously bogus; it amounts
to assuming that every database is a star schema with only one core table.
Interesting; yes, I suppose that's true.
Once we get into GEQO
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 12:33:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The advantage of using a counter instead of a simple active
bit is that buffers that are (or have been) used heavily will be able to
go through several sweeps of the clock before being freed.
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 07:30:37PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
ReadBuffer needs to do a lookup to map the page ID to a buffer ID,
which in principle requires only a shared lock on the page-to-buffer
mapping (embodied in the buf_table hash table). Assuming success, it
also needs to mark the
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 06:26:16AM -0800, Simon Riggs wrote:
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It looks like padding out LWLock struct would ensure that
each of those
were in separate cache lines?
I've looked at this before and I
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 03:42:38PM +0100, Manfred Koizar wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:31:40 +0200, Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) Another simple, but nondeterministic, hack would be using randomness,
i.e.
2.1) select a random buffer in LR side half (or 30% or 60%) of
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 07:42:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the patch is ready to be committed early in the cycle, I'd say most
definitely ... just depends on how late in the cycle its ready ...
My recollection is that it's quite far from being
On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 11:20:46PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Exactly. But 1% would be uselessly small with this definition. Offhand
I'd think something like 50% might be a starting point; maybe even more.
What that says is that a
Port report for Solaris 8: No errors.
uname -a:
SunOS sunos58.build 5.8 Generic_117350-11 sun4u sparc SUNW,UltraAX-i2
gcc -v:
Reading specs from
/gcc-3.4.0/sunos5/bin/../lib/gcc/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/3.4.0/specs
Configured with: /gcc-3.4.0/src/dist/configure --prefix=/usr/site/gcc-3.4.0
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:53:52PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Brad Nicholson wrote:
OK, I assume you used --enable-thread-safety in configure.
Correct.
This should
have added some PTHREAD link flags to your libpq build, and those
settings should have followed the libpq library
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 03:20:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. Buildfarm doesn't yet have that many platforms on it.
It's not as bad as all that. Our current list of supported platforms
(ie, things that got tested last time) is
AIX
Here are the diffs for the regression test failures on Solaris 8.
The tests work fine on Redhat9 and Redhat Enterprise Linux 3.
Ken Marshall
*** ./expected/errors.out Sat Mar 13 22:25:17 2004
--- ./results/errors.outTue Nov 23 14:09:45 2004
***
*** 297,303
--
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 11:00:30AM -0500, Bort, Paul wrote:
From: Kenneth Marshall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[snip]
The simplest idea I had was to pre-layout the WAL logs in a
contiguous fashion
on the disk. Solaris has this ability given appropriate FS
parameters and we
should
The failure that I posted earlier for 8.0.0beta5 on Solaris 8/SPARC
with gcc-3.4.0 and -O3 can be worked around by disabling the interblock
scheduling. I used the following gcc options and 8.0.0beta5 built fine
on the SPARC Solaris 8 machine:
gcc -O3 -fno-sched-interblock ...
The Redhat 9 and
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 12:04:17AM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 23:37, Greg Stark wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- Find a way to reduce rotational delay when repeatedly writing last WAL
page
Currently fsync of WAL requires the disk platter to
Bruce,
Just to chime in. I also agree that fillfactor is useful. I have
been investigating different index variants and different fill
factors can greatly influence the performance of the index. I
also think it may play a key role in minimizing the small table/
many inserts/updates performance
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 05:53:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So I would suggest using something like 100us as the threshold for
determining whether a buffer fetch came from cache.
I see no reason to hardwire such a number. On any hardware, the
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 03:35:49PM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
On 10/22/2004 2:50 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
I've been using the ARC debug options to analyse memory usage on the
PostgreSQL 8.0 server. This is a precursor to more complex performance
analysis work on the OSDL test suite.
I've
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 02:58:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
I've got a problem with these variables in freelist.c:
static int strategy_cdb_found;
static int strategy_cdb_replace;
These two most definitely are per
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 05:26:46AM -0500, Neil Conway wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kenneth Marshall would like me to post this:
I agree that in order to manage today's large memory machines, we
need to have less contention in our buffer management strategies.
The two main
201 - 223 of 223 matches
Mail list logo
