On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 12:57:32PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:03:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Well, the thing is, we've pretty much had it handed to
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 05:36:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have not studied the exact code path, but there are indeed multiple
> > wakeups happening from the semaphore code (as many as the number of
> > active postgresql
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 02:46:56PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> Make SYSV semaphores less dumb about process wakeups. Currently
> >>> whenever the semaphore state changes, all processes sleeping on the
> >>&
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:03:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>>> I think the high number of setproctitle() calls are more problematic
> >>>>> to us at the moment, Kris can comment on that.
>
> >
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 12:50:06PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >
> >>I think the high number of setproctitle() calls are more problematic
> >>to us at the moment, Kris can comment on that.
> >
> >As of PG 8.2 it is possible to turn those off. I don't think there's a
> >lot o
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 06:26:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 05:36:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Anyway I'd be interested to know what the test case is, and which PG
> >> version you wer
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 08:23:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I think the high number of setproctitle() calls are more problematic
> > to us at the moment, Kris can comment on that.
>
> As of PG 8.2 it is possible to turn those off. I don't think there's a
> lot of enthusiasm for turning them of
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 03:52:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 02:46:56PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Oh, I'm sure the BSD kernel acts as you describe. But Mark's point is
> >> that Postg
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 10:23:42AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >> If so, then your task is the following:
> >>
> >> Make SYSV semaphores less dumb about process wakeups. Currently
>
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 10:41:04PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >If so, then your task is the following:
> >
> >Make SYSV semaphores less dumb about process wakeups. Currently
> >whenever the semaphore state changes, all processes sleeping on
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 07:56:30AM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > > I did have dbt2 pretty close to functional on FreeBSD a year ago but
> > > it's probably gone back into linuxisms since then.
> >
> > :(
> >
> > I won't have the chance to work on this further for another 2 months,
> > but if you h
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 11:34:52PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 14:18 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 12:29:14PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> >
> > > Unless supersmack has improved substantially, you're unlikely to find
>
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 03:55:38PM -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
>
> On Jun 12, 2006, at 10:38 AM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >>>FYI, the biggest source of contention is via semop() - it might be
> >>>possible to optimize that some more in FreeBSD, I don't know.
>
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 12:29:14PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> Unless supersmack has improved substantially, you're unlikely to find
> much interest. Last I heard it was a pretty brain-dead benchmark. DBT2/3
> (http://sourceforge.net/projects/osdldbt) is much more realistic (based
> on TPC-C and
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 12:29:14PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > > Can you provide the actual commands you used to setup and run the test?
> >
> > I actually forget all the steps I needed to do to get super-smack
> > working with postgresql since it required a lot of trial and error for
> > a da
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:08:22AM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 12:24:36AM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 10:07:13PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 09:58:33PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > K
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 10:07:13PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 09:58:33PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 07:43:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Let's
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 09:58:33PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 07:43:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Let's see the evidence.
>
> > The calls to setproctitle() (it looks like 4 setproctitle
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 07:43:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >> Why does postgresql change its process title so frequently and how can
> >> this be disabled? Profiling suggests it's a fairly serious
> >> perf
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 03:42:51PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > That's a fair question, but in the context of the code I believe we are
> > behaving reasonably. The reason this code exists is to provide some
> > insurance against leaking semaphores when a
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 06:51:45PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > >This is certainly a problem with FBSD jails... Not only the
> > >inconsistancy, but what happens if someone manages to get access to the
>
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 12:30:58AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:17:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:08:11PM
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:08:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I venture that FBSD 6 has decided to return ESRCH (no such process)
> where FBSD 4 returned some other error that acknowledged that the
> process did exist (EPERM would be a reasonable guess).
>
> If this is the story, then FBSD have bro
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:17:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:08:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> If this is the story, then FBSD have broken their system and must revert
> >> their change.
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:26:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:17:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I have no objection to doing that, so long as you are actually doing it
> >> correctly. This
25 matches
Mail list logo
