On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 2:45 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> I just hit this bad a couple times during some testing. Under load, with
> 2500 segments to recycle, it took well over a minute.
I wonder if this played a part in the wal_recycle=off-for-ZFS thing.
--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com
On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 08:00:23PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Michael's email had a proposed patch. I think there's a few small
> changes needed, but otherwise it looks like the right direction to me.
I would not mind seeing this stuff fixed and back-patched.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Descript
Hi,
On 2019-05-06 22:54:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I think we ought to backpatch a version of this fix.
>
> Uh ... what fix are you talking about?
Michael's email had a proposed patch. I think there's a few small
changes needed, but otherwise it looks like the right d
Andres Freund writes:
> I think we ought to backpatch a version of this fix.
Uh ... what fix are you talking about?
regards, tom lane
Hi,
I just hit this bad a couple times during some testing. Under load, with
2500 segments to recycle, it took well over a minute.
I think we ought to backpatch a version of this fix. Yes, there've not
been many complaints, but there's no messages during log levels one can
enable without beeing c
