Re: [HACKERS] Reducing the size of BufferTag & remodeling forks

On 2015-09-12 13:12:26 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > Why do we have to do buffer lookups using the full buffer tag? We don't necessarily. > Why not just use (relNode, blockNum) and resolve hash collisions, if any? I tried that and unfortunately it came out as a negative - the number of collision

Re: [HACKERS] typo in create policy doc

Dmitriy, * Dmitriy Olshevskiy (olshevski...@bk.ru) wrote: > please check the typo "WTIH CHECK" in CREATE POLICY doc > > (9.5 and devel. version). > patch is in attachments. Fixed. Thanks! Stephen signature.asc Description:

Re: [HACKERS] about fsync in CLOG buffer write

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:32 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-09-10 19:39:59 +0800, 张广舟(明虚) wrote: > > We found there is a fsync call when CLOG buffer > > is written out in SlruPhysicalWritePage(). It is often called when a > backend > > needs to check transaction status

Re: [HACKERS] On-demand running query plans using auto_explain and signals

Hi Thank you for precious check. 2015-09-12 11:50 GMT+02:00 Tomas Vondra : > Hi, > > I did a quick initial review of this patch today, so here are my comments > so far: > > - ipcs.c should include utils/cmdstatus.h (the compiler complains > about implicit

Re: [HACKERS] about fsync in CLOG buffer write

On September 12, 2015 5:18:28 PM PDT, Jeff Janes wrote: >On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:32 AM, Andres Freund >wrote: > >> On 2015-09-10 19:39:59 +0800, 张广舟(明虚) wrote: >> > We found there is a fsync call when CLOG buffer >> > is written out in

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > 1. Modify the tranche mechanism so that information about LWLocks > can be tracked easily. For this already there is some discussion, ideas > and initial patch is floated in this thread and there doesn't seem to be >

Re: [HACKERS] Review: check existency of table for -t option (pg_dump) when pattern...

Hi 2015-09-11 17:59 GMT+02:00 Teodor Sigaev : > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/6/201/ > > Patch looks good and is helpful in some usecases. I found and fix some > typo (new version in attach), but patch shows some inconsistent output: > % pg_dump -t 'aaa*' postgres >

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Hello, I did apply the patch to HEAD and tried to setup basic async replication.But i got an error. Turned on logging for details below. Unpatched Primary Log LOG: database system was shut down at 2015-09-12 13:41:40 IST LOG: MultiXact member wraparound protections are now enabled LOG:

Re: [HACKERS] On-demand running query plans using auto_explain and signals

Hi, I did a quick initial review of this patch today, so here are my comments so far: - ipcs.c should include utils/cmdstatus.h (the compiler complains about implicit declaration of two functions) - Attempts to get plan for simple insert queries like this INSERT INTO x SELECT * FROM

[HACKERS] typo in create policy doc

hello. please check the typo "WTIH CHECK" in CREATE POLICY doc (9.5 and devel. version). patch is in attachments. -- Dmitriy Olshevskiy diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_policy.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_policy.sgml

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev < i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > > On 08/05/2015 09:33 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> >> You're missing the point. Those multi-byte fields have additional >> synchronization requirements, as I explained in some detail in my >> previous

Re: [HACKERS] Double linking MemoryContext children

Jan Wieck wrote: >>> On 09/11/2015 09:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Seems less invasive to fix SPI to delete in the opposite order? > The remaining numbers indicate that other contexts are mostly used in > the intended fashion, but not strictly. This means there is definitely >

Re: [HACKERS] Double linking MemoryContext children

Kevin Grittner writes: > I guess the question is whether to add a pointer for each memory > context to give the MemoryContextSetParent() function O(1) > performance characteristics or add comments in front of this > function to document how callers should organize their code to

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned checkpointing

Hello Fabien, I wrote: > A guc parameter named 'checkpoint_partitions' is added. > This can be set to 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16. > Default is 16. (It is trivial at this present, I think.) I've noticed that the behavior in 'checkpoint_partitions = 1' is not the same as that of original 9.5alpha2. Attached

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned checkpointing

> As to 'partitioned checkpointing' case, the results shown in that graph > is probably worth than bug-fix version. ^ worse Sorry for typo. -- Takashi Horikawa NEC Corporation Knowledge Discovery Research Laboratories > -Original Message- > From:

Re: [HACKERS] Reducing the size of BufferTag & remodeling forks

On 2 July 2015 at 14:36, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > I've complained a number of times that our BufferTag is ridiculously > large: > typedef struct buftag > { > RelFileNode rnode; /* physical relation identifier */ > ForkNumber forkNum; > BlockNumber

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev < i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: >> >> >> I've looked deeper and I found PgBackendStatus to be not a suitable >> place for keeping information about low