Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday 26 April 2008 13:26, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Oh, you failed to state that the dtrace output was post-patch. You need
>> to show *pre* patch dtrace output if you want us to think it relevant.
> Please read up-thread.
Sorry, I'd forgotten your pre
On Saturday 26 April 2008 13:26, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Friday 25 April 2008 17:32, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> Oddly some dtrace profiling gave me this, which is pretty different,
> >>> but certainly doesn't have co
Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 25 April 2008 17:32, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Oddly some dtrace profiling gave me this, which is pretty different, but
>>> certainly doesn't have concerns about TransactionIdIsCurrentTransactionId
>>
>> ...
On Friday 25 April 2008 17:32, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Oddly some dtrace profiling gave me this, which is pretty different, but
> > certainly doesn't have concerns about TransactionIdIsCurrentTransactionId
>
> which seems to pretty much destroy your thesi
Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oddly some dtrace profiling gave me this, which is pretty different, but
> certainly doesn't have concerns about TransactionIdIsCurrentTransactionId
... which seems to pretty much destroy your thesis, no?
regards, tom lane
--
S
On Monday 21 April 2008 12:54, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > Unfortunatly I don't have the 8.1 system to bang on anymore for this,
> > (though anecdotaly speaking, I never saw this behavior in 8.1) however I
> > do now have a parallel 8.3 system crunching the data, and it is showi
Robert Treat wrote:
> Unfortunatly I don't have the 8.1 system to bang on anymore for this, (though
> anecdotaly speaking, I never saw this behavior in 8.1) however I do now have
> a parallel 8.3 system crunching the data, and it is showing the same symptom
> (yes, 2 8.3 servers, crunching the
On Thursday 27 March 2008 17:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sunday 16 March 2008 22:18, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > > Fix TransactionIdIsCurrentTransactionId() to use binary
> > > > > search instead
> > > > > of linear search when checking child-transaction XIDs
