On 5/17/23 3:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2023-05-16 10:30:27 -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
On 5/6/23 1:30 PM, Melanie Plageman wrote:
I've done that in the attached v5.
[RMT hat]
RMT nudge on this thread, as we're approaching the Beta 1 cutoff. From the
above discussion, it sounds
Hi,
On 2023-05-16 10:30:27 -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 5/6/23 1:30 PM, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>
> > I've done that in the attached v5.
>
> [RMT hat]
>
> RMT nudge on this thread, as we're approaching the Beta 1 cutoff. From the
> above discussion, it sounds like it's pretty close to be
On 5/6/23 1:30 PM, Melanie Plageman wrote:
I've done that in the attached v5.
[RMT hat]
RMT nudge on this thread, as we're approaching the Beta 1 cutoff. From
the above discussion, it sounds like it's pretty close to being ready.
Thanks,
Jonathan
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP d
v5 attached.
On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 12:44 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-04-27 11:36:49 -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > > > /* and finally tell the kernel to write the data to
> > > > storage */
> > > > reln = smgropen(currlocator, InvalidBackendId);
> > > >
On 5/4/23 12:46 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2023-05-03 11:36:10 -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
It'd be good if we can get this into Beta 1 if everyone is comfortable with
the patch.
I think we need one more iteration, then I think it can be committed. The
changes are docs phrasing and pol
Hi,
On 2023-04-24 21:29:48 -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> 1) Does it make sense for writebacks to count the number of blocks for
> which writeback was requested or the number of calls to smgrwriteback() or
> the number of actual syscalls made? We don't actually know from outside
> of mdwriteback
Hi,
On 2023-05-03 11:36:10 -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> It'd be good if we can get this into Beta 1 if everyone is comfortable with
> the patch.
I think we need one more iteration, then I think it can be committed. The
changes are docs phrasing and polishing the API a bit, which shouldn't be
Hi,
On 2023-04-27 11:36:49 -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > > /* and finally tell the kernel to write the data to storage
> > > */
> > > reln = smgropen(currlocator, InvalidBackendId);
> > > smgrwriteback(reln, BufTagGetForkNum(&tag), tag.blockNum,
> >
On 4/27/23 11:36 AM, Melanie Plageman wrote:
Thanks for the review!
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 10:22 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
At Wed, 26 Apr 2023 17:08:14 -0400, Melanie Plageman
wrote in
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 9:29 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
I've yet to cook up a client backend test ca
Thanks for the review!
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 10:22 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Wed, 26 Apr 2023 17:08:14 -0400, Melanie Plageman
> wrote in
> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 9:29 PM Melanie Plageman
> > wrote:
> > > I've yet to cook up a client backend test case (e.g. with COPY). I've
> >
At Wed, 26 Apr 2023 17:08:14 -0400, Melanie Plageman
wrote in
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 9:29 PM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> > I've yet to cook up a client backend test case (e.g. with COPY). I've taken
> > that as a todo.
>
> It was trivial to see client backend writebacks in almost any scenar
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 9:29 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> I've yet to cook up a client backend test case (e.g. with COPY). I've taken
> that as a todo.
It was trivial to see client backend writebacks in almost any scenario
once I set backend_flush_after. I wonder if it is worth mentioning the
var
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 7:02 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 03:56:54PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > I was thinking we'd track writeback separately from the write, rather
> than
> > attributing the writeback to "write". Otherwise it looks good, based on
> a
> > quick
On 4/24/23 6:14 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2023-04-24 10:52:15 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 12:55 AM Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
I wonder if it's
worth doing so for 16? It'd give a more complete picture that way. The
counter-argument I see is that we didn't track the
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 03:56:54PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-04-24 18:36:24 -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:13 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > Also, it seems like this (given the current code) is only reachable for
> > > > permanent relations (i.e.
Hi,
On 2023-04-24 18:36:24 -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:13 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Also, it seems like this (given the current code) is only reachable for
> > > permanent relations (i.e. not for IO object temp relation). If other
> > backend
> > > types than ch
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:13 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-04-24 17:37:48 -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 02:14:32PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > It starts blocking once "enough" IO is in flight. For things like an
> immediate
> > > checkpoint, that can
Hi,
On 2023-04-24 10:52:15 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 12:55 AM Jonathan S. Katz
> wrote:
> > > I wonder if it's
> > > worth doing so for 16? It'd give a more complete picture that way. The
> > > counter-argument I see is that we didn't track the time for it in existing
>
Hi,
On 2023-04-24 17:37:48 -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 02:14:32PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > It starts blocking once "enough" IO is in flight. For things like an
> > immediate
> > checkpoint, that can happen fairly quickly, unless you have a very fast IO
> > subs
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 02:14:32PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-04-24 16:39:36 -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 10:23:26AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I noticed that the numbers in pg_stat_io dont't quite add up to what I
> > > expe
Hi,
On 2023-04-24 16:39:36 -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 10:23:26AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I noticed that the numbers in pg_stat_io dont't quite add up to what I
> > expected in write heavy workloads. Particularly for checkpointer, the
> > numbers
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 10:23:26AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that the numbers in pg_stat_io dont't quite add up to what I
> expected in write heavy workloads. Particularly for checkpointer, the numbers
> for "write" in log_checkpoints output are larger than what is visible in
On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 12:55 AM Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>
> On 4/19/23 1:23 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I noticed that the numbers in pg_stat_io dont't quite add up to what I
> > expected in write heavy workloads. Particularly for checkpointer, the
> > numbers
> > for "write" in log
On 4/19/23 1:23 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that the numbers in pg_stat_io dont't quite add up to what I
expected in write heavy workloads. Particularly for checkpointer, the numbers
for "write" in log_checkpoints output are larger than what is visible in
pg_stat_io.
That partially i
Hi,
I noticed that the numbers in pg_stat_io dont't quite add up to what I
expected in write heavy workloads. Particularly for checkpointer, the numbers
for "write" in log_checkpoints output are larger than what is visible in
pg_stat_io.
That partially is because log_checkpoints' "write" covers w
25 matches
Mail list logo
