Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I also fixed the broken warning logic. Please double-check that
> too when you get a chance.
As usual, I like your code better than mine. I don't think my code
was broken in the sense that it would generate different results
than yours, but it was too clever by hal
On 09.06.2011 21:15, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I've committed your patch for now.
Thanks!
I don't see it yet on the public git repo, nor on the -commiters
list. I'll keep an eye out for it.
Oh, rats! Forgot to push.. Will do so now.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
Enterp
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I've committed your patch for now.
Thanks!
I don't see it yet on the public git repo, nor on the -commiters
list. I'll keep an eye out for it.
> as far as I can see it's harmless except for the small waste of
> disk space. We probably want to revisit this late
On 08.06.2011 22:40, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 08.06.2011 03:28, Kevin Grittner wrote:
We had a report of the subject message during testing a while
back and attempted to address the issue. It can result in a LOG
< level message and the accumulation of files in the
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of jue jun 09 04:56:41
-0400 2011:
>
>> Fortunately the fix is very simple, we just need to set the
>> page_dirty flag whenever we modify an slru page. But clearly this
>> slru stuff needs more testing. It's pretty hard to write g
Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of jue jun 09 04:56:41 -0400 2011:
> Fortunately the fix is very simple, we just need to set the page_dirty
> flag whenever we modify an slru page. But clearly this slru stuff needs
> more testing. It's pretty hard to write good repeatable test cases fo
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> While testing this, I noticed another serious bug in the
> OldSerXidSLRU handling: we never set the dirty-flag on any page.
Arg. I never noticed that there was such a thing, although in
retrospect I should have suspected it and gone hunting for it.
> I believe th
While testing this, I noticed another serious bug in the OldSerXidSLRU
handling: we never set the dirty-flag on any page. I believe the reason
we haven't bumped into this in testing before is that when a new page is
initialized, it's marked as dirty, so everything goes smoothly when we
modify r
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 08.06.2011 03:28, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> We had a report of the subject message during testing a while
>> back and attempted to address the issue. It can result in a LOG
>< level message and the accumulation of files in the pg_serial SLRU
>> subdirectory. We have
On 08.06.2011 03:28, Kevin Grittner wrote:
We had a report of the subject message during testing a while back
and attempted to address the issue. It can result in a LOG level
message and the accumulation of files in the pg_serial SLRU
subdirectory. We haven't seen a recurrence, until I hit it d
We had a report of the subject message during testing a while back
and attempted to address the issue. It can result in a LOG level
message and the accumulation of files in the pg_serial SLRU
subdirectory. We haven't seen a recurrence, until I hit it during
testing of the just-posted patch for SS
11 matches
Mail list logo
