On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Gabriele Bartolini
gabriele.bartol...@2ndquadrant.it wrote:
You can easily spot in the graphs the point where VACUUM FULL terminates,
then it is just a matter of flushing the WAL delay for replication.
Agreed.
Anyway, I hope I can give you more detailed
Il 09/05/11 09:14, Simon Riggs ha scritto:
Anyway, I hope I can give you more detailed information tomorrow. Thanks.
Did you find anything else of note, or is your patch ready to commit?
Unfortunately I did not have much time to run further tests.
The ones I have done so far show that it
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I don't think the performance of replication is at issue. This is
about resource control.
The unspoken question here is why would replication be affected by i/o
load anyways? It's reading data file buffers that have only
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu wrote:
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I don't think the performance of replication is at issue. This is
about resource control.
The unspoken question here is why would replication be affected
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I can't see the objection to replacing something inadvertently removed
in 9.0, especially since it is a 1 line patch and is accompanied by
copious technical evidence.
I am not sure which part of this isn't a substitute for what happened
before 9.0 you
Excerpts from Bernd Helmle's message of sáb abr 30 19:40:00 -0300 2011:
--On 30. April 2011 20:19:36 +0200 Gabriele Bartolini
gabriele.bartol...@2ndquadrant.it wrote:
I have noticed that during VACUUM FULL on reasonably big tables, replication
lag climbs. In order to smooth down the
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
As for copious technical evidence, I saw no evidence provided
whatsoever that this patch really did anything much to fix the
reported problem. Yeah, it would help during the initial scan
of the old rel, but not during the sort
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I can't see the objection to replacing something inadvertently removed
in 9.0, especially since it is a 1 line patch and is accompanied by
copious technical evidence.
I am not sure
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Yeah, it would help during the initial scan
of the old rel, but not during the sort or reindex steps.
As Greg points out, the sort is not really of concern (for now).
Though I was surprised the reindex isn't an equally
Il 02/05/11 18:20, Simon Riggs ha scritto:
I'm sure Gabriele can add those things as well - that also looks like
another 1 line change.
Yes, today we have performed some tests with that patch as well
(attached is version 2). The version 2 of the patch (which includes the
change Tom suggested
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Gabriele Bartolini
I have noticed that during VACUUM FULL on reasonably big tables, replication
lag climbs. In order to smooth down the replication
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
A bigger objection to this patch is that it seems quite incomplete.
I'm not sure there's much point in adding delays to the first loop of
copy_heap_data() without also providing for
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
A bigger objection to this patch is that it seems quite incomplete.
I'm not sure there's much point in adding delays
Hi guys,
I have noticed that during VACUUM FULL on reasonably big tables,
replication lag climbs. In order to smooth down the replication lag, I
propose the attached patch which enables vacuum delay for VACUUM FULL.
Please find attached the patch and below more information on this
specific
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Gabriele Bartolini
gabriele.bartol...@2ndquadrant.it wrote:
Hi guys,
I have noticed that during VACUUM FULL on reasonably big tables, replication
lag climbs. In order to smooth down the replication lag, I propose the
attached patch which enables vacuum delay
--On 30. April 2011 20:19:36 +0200 Gabriele Bartolini
gabriele.bartol...@2ndquadrant.it wrote:
I have noticed that during VACUUM FULL on reasonably big tables, replication
lag climbs. In order to smooth down the replication lag, I propose the
attached patch which enables vacuum delay for
Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Gabriele Bartolini
I have noticed that during VACUUM FULL on reasonably big tables, replication
lag climbs. In order to smooth down the replication lag, I propose the
attached patch which enables vacuum delay for
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Gabriele Bartolini
I have noticed that during VACUUM FULL on reasonably big tables, replication
lag climbs. In order to smooth down the replication
18 matches
Mail list logo
