On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 10:19:01PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I don't know that this warrants an Opened Item, but I think some fix
> ought to be applied to v15, whether that happens this week or next
> month.
With RC1 getting close by, I have looked at that again and applied a
patch that
I don't know that this warrants an Opened Item, but I think some fix
ought to be applied to v15, whether that happens this week or next
month.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 01:32:11PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 09:13:11PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Like this, maybe.
> >
> > It's similar to what I suggested to consider backpatching here:
> >
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 09:13:11PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Like this, maybe.
>
> It's similar to what I suggested to consider backpatching here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20201214032224.GA30237%40telsasoft.com
At the same time, df9274adf has been done because the
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 07:54:43PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 02:19:22PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 9:52 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 1:17 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > > > That's great. I just realized that this leaves us
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 02:19:22PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 9:52 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 1:17 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > > That's great. I just realized that this leaves us with identical
> > > RequestCheckpoint() calls in two nearby places. Is
On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 9:52 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 1:17 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > That's great. I just realized that this leaves us with identical
> > RequestCheckpoint() calls in two nearby places. Is there any reason
> > not to further simplify as in the attached?
>
>
On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 1:17 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> That's great. I just realized that this leaves us with identical
> RequestCheckpoint() calls in two nearby places. Is there any reason
> not to further simplify as in the attached?
LGTM.
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 9:51 AM Jakub Wartak wrote:
> BTW, if you now there's this big push for refactoring StartupXLOG() then what
> frustrating^H^H^H^H^H could be done better - at least from end-user point of
> view -
> is that there is lack of near real time cyclic messages (every 1min?)
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 9:40 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > That's great. I just realized that this leaves us with identical
> > RequestCheckpoint() calls in two nearby places. Is there any reason
> > not to further simplify as in the attached?
> >
> +1, also, can we just get rid off "promoted" flag? The
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 4:00 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > I don't agree with that? If (user+system) << wall then it is very
> > likely that recovery is IO bound. If system is a large percentage of
> > wall, then shared buffers is likely too small (or we're replacing the
> > wrong
> > buffers)
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 6:47 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 1:37 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > I pushed 0001.
>
> That's great. I just realized that this leaves us with identical
> RequestCheckpoint() calls in two nearby places. Is there any reason
> not to further simplify as in
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 1:37 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> I pushed 0001.
That's great. I just realized that this leaves us with identical
RequestCheckpoint() calls in two nearby places. Is there any reason
not to further simplify as in the attached?
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 4:00 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't agree with that? If (user+system) << wall then it is very likely
> that recovery is IO bound. If system is a large percentage of wall, then
> shared buffers is likely too small (or we're replacing the wrong
> buffers) because you
On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 2:16 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 4:42 AM Aleksander Alekseev
> wrote:
> > v2-0001 and v2-0002 look fine, but I don't like much the idea of
> > introducing a new GUC in v2-0003. It's for very specific needs, which most
> > of the users, I believe,
Hi,
On 2021-07-30 10:16:44 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> 2021-07-30 09:39:43.579 EDT [63702] LOG: redo starts at 0/14A2F48
> 2021-07-30 09:39:44.129 EDT [63702] LOG: redo done at 0/15F48230
> system usage: CPU: user: 0.25 s, system: 0.25 s, elapsed: 0.55 s
> 2021-07-30 09:39:44.129 EDT [63702]
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 4:42 AM Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
> v2-0001 and v2-0002 look fine, but I don't like much the idea of introducing
> a new GUC in v2-0003. It's for very specific needs, which most of the users,
> I believe, don't care about. I suggest dealing with v2-0001 and v2-0002
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:tested, passed
v2-0001 and v2-0002 look fine, but I don't like much the
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 11:11 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> I think the way it works right now is stupid and the proposed change
> is going in the right direction. We have ample evidence already that
> handing off fsyncs to a background process is a good idea, and there's
> no reason why that shouldn't
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 8:13 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> Currently we don't run the bgwriter process during crash recovery.
> I've CCed Simon and Heikki who established this in commit cdd46c76.
> Based on that commit message, I think the bar to clear to change the
> policy is to show that it's
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 9:57 PM Simon Riggs wrote:
> Having said that, we did raise the checkpoint_timeout by a lot, so the
> situation today might be quite different. A large checkpoint_timeout
> could eventually overflow shared buffers, with the right workload.
FWIW Jakuk Wartak did manage to
On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 at 01:39, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Thomas Munro writes:
> > Once we had the checkpointer running, we could also consider making
> > the end-of-recovery checkpoint optional, or at least the wait for it
> > to complete. I haven't shown that in this patch, but it's just
> >
Thomas Munro writes:
> Once we had the checkpointer running, we could also consider making
> the end-of-recovery checkpoint optional, or at least the wait for it
> to complete. I haven't shown that in this patch, but it's just
> different checkpoint request flags and possibly an end-of-recovery
(Forking this thread from the SLRU fsync one[1] to allow for a
separate CF entry; it's unrelated, except for being another case of
moving work off the recovery process's plate.)
Hello hackers,
Currently we don't run the bgwriter process during crash recovery.
I've CCed Simon and Heikki who
24 matches
Mail list logo
