Re: [HACKERS] New statistics for WAL buffer dirty writes

2012-07-29 Thread Simon Riggs
On 7 July 2012 18:06, Robert Haas wrote: > Sure, but I doubt that would be as informative as this. It's no big deal if > you hit 100% every once in a while; what you really want to know is whether > it's happening once per second or once per week. Agreed. I can't see an easy way of recording

[HACKERS] Re: Prevent restored WAL files from being archived again Re: Unnecessary WAL archiving after failover

2012-07-29 Thread Fujii Masao
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:03:27PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> (2) WAL files which were restored from the archive >>> >>> In 9.1 or before, the restored WAL files don't remain after failo

[HACKERS] Prevent restored WAL files from being archived again Re: Unnecessary WAL archiving after failover

2012-07-29 Thread Fujii Masao
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:03:27PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> (2) WAL files which were restored from the archive >> >> In 9.1 or before, the restored WAL files don't remain after failover >> because they are always restored onto the temporary f

Re: [HACKERS] Adding probes for smgr

2012-07-29 Thread Satoshi Nagayasu
(2012/07/29 12:14), Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Geoghegan writes: >> On 28 July 2012 17:15, Tom Lane wrote: >>> IMV smgr is pretty vestigial. I wouldn't recommend loading more >>> functionality onto that layer, because it's as likely as not that >>> we'll just get rid of it someday. > >> Agreed. I