Later version of this patch added to the patch queue.
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews
and approves it.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Do we want to add this additional log infor to CVS for 8.0?
No, unless we're looking for an RC5?
---
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 19:14 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Do we want to add this additional log infor to CVS for 8.0?
No, unless we're looking for an RC5?
I vote no as well. While it's probably not a dangerous change, the need
for it has not been demonstrated.
Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Do we want to add this additional log infor to CVS for 8.0?
No, unless we're looking for an RC5?
I vote no as well. While it's probably not a dangerous change, the need
for it has not
Do we want to add this additional log infor to CVS for 8.0?
---
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 19:14 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Here's my bgwriter instrumentation patch, which gives info
On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 19:14 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Here's my bgwriter instrumentation patch, which gives info that could
allow the bgwriter settings to be tuned.
Uh, what does this do exactly? Add additional logging output?
Produces output like this...
OK, we have a submitted patch that attempts to improve bgwriter by
making bgwriter_percent control what percentage of the buffer is
scanned.
The patch still needs doc changes and a change to the default value but
at this point we need a vote on the patch. Is it:
* too late for 8.0
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
OK, we have a submitted patch that attempts to improve bgwriter by
making bgwriter_percent control what percentage of the buffer is
scanned.
The patch still needs doc changes and a change to the default value but
at this point we need a vote on
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
OK, we have a submitted patch that attempts to improve bgwriter by
making bgwriter_percent control what percentage of the buffer is
scanned.
The patch still needs doc changes and a change to the default value but
at this point we need a vote on the patch.
On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 20:09, Bruce Momjian wrote:
OK, we have a submitted patch that attempts to improve bgwriter by
making bgwriter_percent control what percentage of the buffer is
scanned.
The patch still needs doc changes and a change to the default value but
at this point we need a vote
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 20:09, Bruce Momjian wrote:
OK, we have a submitted patch that attempts to improve bgwriter by
making bgwriter_percent control what percentage of the buffer is
scanned.
The patch still needs doc changes and a change to the default value but
at
On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 23:03, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 20:09, Bruce Momjian wrote:
OK, we have a submitted patch that attempts to improve bgwriter by
making bgwriter_percent control what percentage of the buffer is
scanned.
The patch still
Simon Riggs wrote:
Here's my bgwriter instrumentation patch, which gives info that could
allow the bgwriter settings to be tuned.
Uh, what does this do exactly? Add additional logging output?
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us
This has been saved for the 8.1 release:
http:/momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches2
---
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 17:47, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 17:01, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 06:20, Bruce Momjian wrote:
This change isn't going to make it for RC3, and it probably not
something we want to rush.
OK. Thank you.
I think there are a few issues involved:
o everyone agrees the current meaning of bgwriter_percent is
useless
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 06:20, Bruce Momjian wrote:
This change isn't going to make it for RC3, and it probably not
something we want to rush.
OK. Thank you.
I think there are a few issues involved:
o everyone agrees the current meaning of bgwriter_percent is
On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 17:01, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Well, I think we're saying: its not in 8.0 now, and we take our time to
consider patches for 8.1 and accept the situation that the parameter
names/meaning will change in next release.
I have no problem doing
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
o everyone agrees the current meaning of bgwriter_percent is
useless (percent of dirty buffers)
Oh?
It's not useless by any means; it's a perfectly reasonable and useful
definition that happens to be expensive to implement. One of
On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 17:47, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 17:01, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Well, I think we're saying: its not in 8.0 now, and we take our time to
consider patches for 8.1 and accept the situation that the parameter
names/meaning will
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
o everyone agrees the current meaning of bgwriter_percent is
useless (percent of dirty buffers)
Oh?
It's not useless by any means; it's a perfectly reasonable and useful
definition that happens to be expensive to
This change isn't going to make it for RC3, and it probably not
something we want to rush.
I think there are a few issues involved:
o everyone agrees the current meaning of bgwriter_percent is
useless (percent of dirty buffers)
o removal of bgwriter_percent will
21 matches
Mail list logo
