On 17/11/2011, at 1:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Not sure about the log line, but allowing pgstattuple to distinguish
between recently-dead and quite-thoroughly-dead seems useful.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Royce Ausburn royce...@inomial.com wrote:
Thanks for the discussion so far all. Would it be worthwhile to make another
patch that addresses the points from Yeb's reviews? It's not sounding like
this unremovable tuple count is something that postgres wants,
On 18/11/2011, at 10:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Royce Ausburn royce...@inomial.com wrote:
Thanks for the discussion so far all. Would it be worthwhile to make
another patch that addresses the points from Yeb's reviews? It's not
sounding like this
On 2011-11-15 22:04, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Oh. I was thinking dead meant no longer visible to anyone. But
it sounds what we call unremovable here is what we elsewhere call
recently dead.
Would have to look at the code to be sure, but I think that
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Yeb Havinga yebhavi...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently pg_stat* counts the recently_dead tuple under n_live_tup, else 2
is a wrong number, where pgstattuple counts recently_dead under
dead_tuple_count. This could be a source of confusion. If there is any
serious
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Royce Ausburn royce...@inomial.com wrote:
Fair enough -- someone knowledgable could set that up if they wanted. My
goal was mostly to have something helpful in the logs. If that's not
something postgres wants/needs Ill drop it =)
IMHO, it's generally not
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Not sure about the log line, but allowing pgstattuple to distinguish
between recently-dead and quite-thoroughly-dead seems useful.
The dividing line is enormously unstable though. pgstattuple's idea of
RecentGlobalXmin could even be significantly
On 2011-11-16 15:34, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Not sure about the log line, but allowing pgstattuple to distinguish
between recently-dead and quite-thoroughly-dead seems useful.
The dividing line is enormously unstable though. pgstattuple's idea of
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Not sure about the log line, but allowing pgstattuple to distinguish
between recently-dead and quite-thoroughly-dead seems useful.
The dividing line is enormously unstable though.
Yeb Havinga yebhavi...@gmail.com writes:
On 2011-11-16 15:34, Tom Lane wrote:
The dividing line is enormously unstable though. pgstattuple's idea of
RecentGlobalXmin could even be significantly different from that of a
concurrently running VACUUM. I can see the point of having VACUUM log
On 2011-10-05 00:45, Royce Ausburn wrote:
Attached is v2 of my patch that doesn't update CATALOG_VERSION_NO. I've also fixed the name of an
argument to pgstat_report_vacuum which I don't think was particularly good, and I've replace the
word tuple with row in some docs I added for
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Yeb Havinga yebhavi...@gmail.com wrote:
I reviewed your patch. I think it is in good shape, my two main remarks
(name of n_unremovable_tup and a remark about documentation at the end of
this review) are highly subjective and I wouldn't spend time on it unless
On 2011-11-15 16:16, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Yeb Havingayebhavi...@gmail.com wrote:
I reviewed your patch. I think it is in good shape, my two main remarks
(name of n_unremovable_tup and a remark about documentation at the end of
this review) are highly subjective
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar nov 15 12:16:54 -0300 2011:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Yeb Havinga yebhavi...@gmail.com wrote:
I reviewed your patch. I think it is in good shape, my two main remarks
(name of n_unremovable_tup and a remark about documentation at the end of
On 11/15/2011 10:29 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
They were deleted but there are transactions with older snapshots.
I think vacuum uses the term nondeletable or nonremovable. Not sure
which one is less bad. Not being a native speaker, they all sound
horrible to me.
I would go more for
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar nov 15 12:16:54 -0300 2011:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Yeb Havinga yebhavi...@gmail.com wrote:
I reviewed your patch. I think it is in good shape, my two main
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
nondeletable is surely terrible, since they may well have got into
this state by being deleted. nonremovable is better, but still not
great.
Bit of brain storm, including looking over to terminology used for
garbage
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar nov 15 12:16:54 -0300 2011:
I guess this is a dumb question, but why don't we remove all the dead
tuples?
They were deleted
On 16/11/2011, at 2:05 AM, Yeb Havinga wrote:
On 2011-10-05 00:45, Royce Ausburn wrote:
Attached is v2 of my patch that doesn't update CATALOG_VERSION_NO. I've
also fixed the name of an argument to pgstat_report_vacuum which I don't
think was particularly good, and I've replace the word
On 16/11/2011, at 8:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar nov 15 12:16:54 -0300 2011:
I guess this is a dumb question, but why don't we
Personally I think some log output, done better, would have been more useful
for me at the time. At the time I was trying to diagnose an ineffective
vacuum and postgres' logs weren't giving me any hints about what was wrong.
I turned to the mailing list and got immediate help, but I
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Royce Ausburn royce...@inomial.com wrote:
Personally I think some log output, done better, would have been more useful
for me at the time. At the time I was trying to diagnose an ineffective
vacuum and postgres' logs weren't giving me any hints about what was
On 16/11/2011, at 12:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Royce Ausburn royce...@inomial.com wrote:
Personally I think some log output, done better, would have been more
useful for me at the time. At the time I was trying to diagnose an
ineffective vacuum and
On 10/04/2011 03:45 PM, Royce Ausburn wrote:
I think I get this stats stuff now. Unless someone here thinks it's
too hard for a new postgres dev's 2nd patch, I could take a stab. I
might take a look at it tonight to get a feel for how hard, and what
stats we could collect. I'll start a new
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Royce Ausburn royce...@inomial.com wrote:
I'm not sure what my next step should be. I've added this patch to the open
commit fest -- is that all for now until the commit fest begins review?
Yep, except that it might be nice if you could volunteer to review
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Royce Ausburn royce...@inomial.com wrote:
- I'm not sure if I'm supposed to update CATALOG_VERSION_NO in catalog.h. In
this patch I have.
Generally that is left to the committer, as the correct value depends
on the value at the time of commit, not the time you
On 04/10/2011, at 11:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Royce Ausburn royce...@inomial.com wrote:
- I'm not sure if I'm supposed to update CATALOG_VERSION_NO in catalog.h.
In this patch I have.
Generally that is left to the committer, as the correct value depends
On 28/09/2011, at 11:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Royce Ausburn's message of mar sep 27 21:28:26 -0300 2011:
Tom's suggestion looks like it's less trivial that I can do just yet, but
I'll take a look and ask for help if I need it.
28 matches
Mail list logo
