On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 12:57:32PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:03:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Well, the thing is, we've pretty much had it handed to us that
> > >> current-command indicators that
Tom Lane wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> forwards:
> > Yes but there are still a lot of wakeups to be avoided in the current
> > System V semaphore code. More specifically, not only do we wakeup all
> > the processes waiting on a single semaphore everytime something changes,
> > but we
Tom Lane wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:03:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Well, the thing is, we've pretty much had it handed to us that
> >> current-command indicators that aren't up to date are not very useful.
> >> So rate-limited updates stri
"Kris Kennaway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If there really are users who find 10 proctitle updates/second an
> unacceptably low update rate, then tune for the default case and
> provide an option to allow them to override the rate limit to whatever
> update rate they find appropriate.
If you
Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:03:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, the thing is, we've pretty much had it handed to us that
>> current-command indicators that aren't up to date are not very useful.
>> So rate-limited updates strike me as a useless comprom
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:03:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think the high number of setproctitle() calls are more problematic
> > to us at the moment, Kris can comment on that.
>
> > Since we've basically had it handed to us that calling set
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 12:50:06PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >
> >>I think the high number of setproctitle() calls are more problematic
> >>to us at the moment, Kris can comment on that.
> >
> >As of PG 8.2 it is possible to turn those off. I don't think there's a
> >lot o
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 08:23:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I think the high number of setproctitle() calls are more problematic
> > to us at the moment, Kris can comment on that.
>
> As of PG 8.2 it is possible to turn those off. I don't think there's a
> lot of enthusiasm for turning them of
Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the high number of setproctitle() calls are more problematic
> to us at the moment, Kris can comment on that.
> Since we've basically had it handed to us that calling setproctitle()
> thousands of times per second is something that real a
Tom Lane wrote:
I think the high number of setproctitle() calls are more problematic
to us at the moment, Kris can comment on that.
As of PG 8.2 it is possible to turn those off. I don't think there's a
lot of enthusiasm for turning them off by default ... at least not yet.
But it might mak
Maxime Henrion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for forwarding my mail, Kris! To Tom: if you can get my mails
> to reach pgsql-hackers@ somehow that would be just great :-).
They'll get approved eventually, just like mine to the BSD lists will
get approved eventually ;-)
>> The only thing we
Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> forwards:
> Yes but there are still a lot of wakeups to be avoided in the current
> System V semaphore code. More specifically, not only do we wakeup all
> the processes waiting on a single semaphore everytime something changes,
> but we also wakeup all processes
12 matches
Mail list logo
