Hi,
I found that no one is registered as hot standby reviewer. I'd like
to review the patch, mainly by testing through some benchmark test.
Regards;
2008/11/2 Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hot Standby patch, including all major planned features.
Allows users to connect to server in
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Koichi Suzuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I found that no one is registered as hot standby reviewer. I'd like
to review the patch, mainly by testing through some benchmark test.
You can yourself edit the Wiki page, though you need to register first. But
Thank you for your advise. I'll edit the Wiki page.
2008/12/3 Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Koichi Suzuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I found that no one is registered as hot standby reviewer. I'd like
to review the patch, mainly by testing
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
(I assume you mean bgwriter, not archiver process).
Yeah, its the bgwriter, IIRC hung while taking checkpoint.
Sorry, its the startup process
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 17:08 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
Sorry, its the startup process thats stuck in the checkpoint. Here is
the stack trace:
Already fixed in new version I'm preparing for you.
Both the startup process and bgwriter can perform restartpoints, so its
not a problem whether we
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 11:51 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
I wonder if we should refactor lazy_scan_heap() so that *all* the real
work of collecting information about dead tuples happens only in
heap_page_prune(). Frankly, there is only a rare chance that a tuple
may become DEAD after the
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would suggest that we just remove the switch statement:
switch (HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum(tuple.t_data, OldestXmin, buf))
and alter the following if test since tupgone is also removed.
That will cause
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 12:03 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hot Standby patch, including all major planned features.
While experimenting with the patch, I noticed that sometimes the
archiver process
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I assume you mean bgwriter, not archiver process).
Yeah, its the bgwriter, IIRC hung while taking checkpoint.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wonder if we should refactor lazy_scan_heap() so that *all* the real work
of collecting information about dead tuples happens only in
heap_page_prune(). Frankly, there is only a rare chance that a tuple may
become DEAD after the pruning happened on
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 10:33 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wonder if we should refactor lazy_scan_heap() so that *all* the real work
of collecting information about dead tuples happens only in
heap_page_prune(). Frankly, there is only a rare chance that a
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think you can do that. Couldn't someone else have run
heap_page_prune between vacuum's first and second visit to the page?
You mean the second visit in the first pass where we again check for
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hot Standby patch, including all major planned features.
I wonder if we should refactor lazy_scan_heap() so that *all* the real work
of collecting information about dead tuples happens only in
heap_page_prune(). Frankly,
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hot Standby patch, including all major planned features.
While experimenting with the patch, I noticed that sometimes the archiver
process indefinitely waits for WALInsertLock. I haven't spent much time
debugging that, but
14 matches
Mail list logo
