On 09/30/2014 09:10 PM, Gregory Smith wrote:
On 9/29/14, 2:30 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Can we explain those reasons in the form of documentation?
Yes. Try and benchmark it. It'll be hardware and workload dependant.
I missed this whole thing, and eventually I have to circle back to it.
I could
On 9/29/14, 2:30 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Can we explain those reasons in the form of documentation?
Yes. Try and benchmark it. It'll be hardware and workload dependant.
I missed this whole thing, and eventually I have to circle back to it.
I could do it this week. Could you (or someone el
On 09/30/2014 04:56 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> There seems to be no decisive consensus here. I'm going to put my foot
> on the ground and go remove it, as I'm leaning towards that option, and
> we need to get the release out. But if someone objects loudly enough to
> actually write the documen
On 09/29/2014 11:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-09-29 16:35:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund writes:
On 2014-09-29 16:16:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I wonder why it's a fixed constant at all, and not something like
"wal_buffers / 8".
Because that'd be horrible performancewise on
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > The items I see are:
>
> > - Remove xloginsert_slots/xloginsert_locks GUC - Not yet!!
>
> > The text seems to indicate that there's some disagreement on this
> > point. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not to
On 2014-09-29 16:35:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2014-09-29 16:16:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I wonder why it's a fixed constant at all, and not something like
> >> "wal_buffers / 8".
>
> > Because that'd be horrible performancewise on a system with many
> > wal_buf
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2014-09-29 16:16:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wonder why it's a fixed constant at all, and not something like
>> "wal_buffers / 8".
> Because that'd be horrible performancewise on a system with many
> wal_buffers. There's several operations where all locks are checked
On 2014-09-29 16:16:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2014-09-29 14:44:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Personally I think a hardwired #define should be plenty. What's the
> >> argument that users will need to tune this at runtime?
>
> > That right now it can make quite noti
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2014-09-29 14:44:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Personally I think a hardwired #define should be plenty. What's the
>> argument that users will need to tune this at runtime?
> That right now it can make quite noticeable differences in
> scalability. And we have not much
On 2014-09-29 14:44:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > The items I see are:
>
> > - Remove xloginsert_slots/xloginsert_locks GUC - Not yet!!
>
> > The text seems to indicate that there's some disagreement on this
> > point. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not to kee
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> The items I see are:
>
>> - Remove xloginsert_slots/xloginsert_locks GUC - Not yet!!
>
>> The text seems to indicate that there's some disagreement on this
>> point. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not to keep
Robert Haas writes:
> The items I see are:
> - Remove xloginsert_slots/xloginsert_locks GUC - Not yet!!
> The text seems to indicate that there's some disagreement on this
> point. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not to keep the
> GUC, but if we're going to remove it it should proba
On 2014-09-29 11:28:07 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 09/29/2014 08:53 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> - Remove xloginsert_slots/xloginsert_locks GUC - Not yet!!
> >> >
> >> > The text seems to indicate that there's some disagreement on this
> >> > point. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or
On 09/29/2014 08:53 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> - Remove xloginsert_slots/xloginsert_locks GUC - Not yet!!
>> >
>> > The text seems to indicate that there's some disagreement on this
>> > point. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not to keep the
>> > GUC, but if we're going to remove it
Dne 29.9.2014 18:00 "Magnus Hagander" napsal(a):
>
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Andres Freund
wrote:
> > On 2014-09-29 11:50:19 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> The items I see are:
> >>
> >> - Remove xloginsert_slots/xloginsert_locks GUC - Not yet!!
> >>
> >> The text seems to indicate that
Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-09-29 11:50:19 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > - pg_dump fails with --if-exists and blobs
> >
> > This looks like a 9.4 regression.
>
> Alvaro, IIRC you were looking at this one?
I am.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Develop
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-09-29 11:50:19 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> The items I see are:
>>
>> - Remove xloginsert_slots/xloginsert_locks GUC - Not yet!!
>>
>> The text seems to indicate that there's some disagreement on this
>> point. I don't have a strong
On 2014-09-29 11:50:19 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> The items I see are:
>
> - Remove xloginsert_slots/xloginsert_locks GUC - Not yet!!
>
> The text seems to indicate that there's some disagreement on this
> point. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not to keep the
> GUC, but if we're go
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus writes:
>> So, can we get Beta3 out now?
>
> If nobody else steps up and says they want to do some performance
> testing, I'll push the latest lengths+offsets patch tomorrow.
>
> Are any of the other open items listed at
> https://wi
19 matches
Mail list logo
