> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:05 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:48 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 06:21:34PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > > Nothing changed since then, but also the patch got not enough review to
> > > say
> > > that there was
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:48 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 06:21:34PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > Nothing changed since then, but also the patch got not enough review to say
> > that there was substantial feedback. I'll move it to the next CF.
>
> I would have suggeste
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 06:21:34PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> Nothing changed since then, but also the patch got not enough review to say
> that there was substantial feedback. I'll move it to the next CF.
I would have suggested to mark the patch as returned with feedback
instead as the thing d
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 4:42 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 04:20:53PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > If there is an up-to-date information meaning either that there is no
> > tables needing vacuum or that there is only table needing vacuum but
> > being vacuumed by othe
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 04:20:53PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> If there is an up-to-date information meaning either that there is no
> tables needing vacuum or that there is only table needing vacuum but
> being vacuumed by other worker, AV launcher can launches new one to
> other database.
I
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> I haven't read your respective patches yet, but both these threads
>> brought to memory a patch I proposed a few years ago that I never
>> completed:
>>
>> https://w
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hello
>
> I haven't read your respective patches yet, but both these threads
> brought to memory a patch I proposed a few years ago that I never
> completed:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20130124215715.GE4528%40alvh.no-ip.o
Hello
I haven't read your respective patches yet, but both these threads
brought to memory a patch I proposed a few years ago that I never
completed:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20130124215715.GE4528%40alvh.no-ip.org
In that thread I posted a patch to implement a prioritisation sc
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2018-02-28 18:04:27 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> I've created the new thread for the changing AV launcher scheduling.
>>> The problem of AV launcher scheduling is des
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-02-28 18:04:27 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> I've created the new thread for the changing AV launcher scheduling.
>> The problem of AV launcher scheduling is described on [1] but I
>> summarize it here.
>
> This is a new pat
Hi,
On 2018-02-28 18:04:27 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I've created the new thread for the changing AV launcher scheduling.
> The problem of AV launcher scheduling is described on [1] but I
> summarize it here.
This is a new patch submitted to CF 2018-03. As that's the last CF for
v11, and th
On 02/28/2018 12:04 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
Hi,
I've created the new thread for the changing AV launcher scheduling.
The problem of AV launcher scheduling is described on [1] but I
summarize it here.
If there is even one database that is at risk of wraparound, currently
AV launcher selects
Hi,
I've created the new thread for the changing AV launcher scheduling.
The problem of AV launcher scheduling is described on [1] but I
summarize it here.
If there is even one database that is at risk of wraparound, currently
AV launcher selects the database having the oldest datfrozenxid until
13 matches
Mail list logo
