On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2013-08-27 12:17:55 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Andres Freund
>>> wrote:
>>> > On 2013-08-27 09:57:38 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>> >>
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-08-27 12:17:55 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Andres Freund
>> wrote:
>> > On 2013-08-27 09:57:38 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> >> + bool
>> >> + RecoveryMightBeInProgress(void)
>> >> + {
>> >> +
On 2013-08-27 12:17:55 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > On 2013-08-27 09:57:38 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> >> + bool
> >> + RecoveryMightBeInProgress(void)
> >> + {
> >> + /*
> >> + * We check shared state each time only until
On 2013-09-17 08:40:23 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > If you ever get into the situation I mistakenly referred to again, I'd
> > strongly suggest recompling postgres with -fno-omit-frame-pointer. That
> > makes hierarchical profiles actually useful which can help tremendously
> > with diagnosing
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-09-17 08:32:30 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Andres Freund
>> wrote:
>> > On 2013-09-17 08:18:54 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> >> Do you think it's worth submitting the lock avoidance patch for f
On 2013-09-17 08:32:30 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2013-09-17 08:18:54 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> >> Do you think it's worth submitting the lock avoidance patch for formal
> >> review?
> >
> > You mean the bufmgr.c thing? General
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-09-17 08:18:54 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> Do you think it's worth submitting the lock avoidance patch for formal
>> review?
>
> You mean the bufmgr.c thing? Generally I think that that code needs a
> good of scalability work - t
On 2013-09-17 08:18:54 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2013-09-17 17:55:01 +0600, Дмитрий Дегтярёв wrote:
> >> We have not been able to reproduce this problem on a test servers. Use this
> >> patch to production servers do not
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2013-09-17 17:55:01 +0600, Дмитрий Дегтярёв wrote:
>> We have not been able to reproduce this problem on a test servers. Use this
>> patch to production servers do not dare.
>>
>> In the course of studying the problems we have iden
Hi,
On 2013-09-17 17:55:01 +0600, Дмитрий Дегтярёв wrote:
> We have not been able to reproduce this problem on a test servers. Use this
> patch to production servers do not dare.
>
> In the course of studying the problems we have identified that many queries
> are executed on the slave several ti
Hello.
We have not been able to reproduce this problem on a test servers. Use this
patch to production servers do not dare.
In the course of studying the problems we have identified that many queries
are executed on the slave several times slower. On master function
heap_hot_search_buffer execute
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-08-27 09:57:38 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> + bool
>> + RecoveryMightBeInProgress(void)
>> + {
>> + /*
>> + * We check shared state each time only until we leave recovery mode.
>> We
>> + * can't re-enter recovery,
On 2013-08-27 09:57:38 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> + bool
> + RecoveryMightBeInProgress(void)
> + {
> + /*
> + * We check shared state each time only until we leave recovery mode. We
> + * can't re-enter recovery, so there's no need to keep checking after
> the
> + * shared v
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Something like the attached. Note, this patch is for research
> purposes only and should *not* be applied to your production
> environment.
Here is a revised version that is missing the spurious whitespace edit.
merlin
recovery2.patch
D
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> It looks like you're hitting spinlock connection inside
>> heap_page_prune_opt(). Which is commented:
>> * Note: this is called quite often. It's important that it fall out quickl
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> It looks like you're hitting spinlock connection inside
> heap_page_prune_opt(). Which is commented:
> * Note: this is called quite often. It's important that it fall out quickly
> * if there's not any use in pruning.
>
> This in turn ca
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Дмитрий Дегтярёв wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Exist 2 identical server DELL PowerEdge™ R720, CPU Dual Intel® Xeon® E5-2620
> Hexa-Core inkl, RAM 256Gb, RAID-10 8 x 600 GB SAS 6 Gb/s 15000 rpm.
>
> $ cat /etc/fedora-release
> Fedora release 19
>
> $ postgres --version
> post
Hello.
Exist 2 identical server DELL PowerEdge™ R720, CPU Dual Intel® Xeon®
E5-2620 Hexa-Core inkl, RAM 256Gb, RAID-10 8 x 600 GB SAS 6 Gb/s 15000 rpm.
$ cat /etc/fedora-release
Fedora release 19
$ postgres --version
postgres (PostgreSQL) 9.2.4
Data ~220Gb and Indexes ~140Gb
iowait ~0.2-0.5. D
18 matches
Mail list logo
