On 2014-06-01 00:50:58 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 5/31/14, 9:11 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >On 2014-02-21 15:14:15 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> >>On 2/17/14, 7:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >>>But do you really want to keep that snapshot around long enough to
> >>>copy the entire database? I bet you
On 5/31/14, 9:11 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-02-21 15:14:15 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 2/17/14, 7:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
But do you really want to keep that snapshot around long enough to
copy the entire database? I bet you don't: if the database is big,
holding back xmin for long enou
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 9:44 PM, johnlumby wrote:
> I'll try to do some measuring of performance with:
> a) git head
> b) git head + patch as-is
> c) git head + patch without aio_suspend in foreign processes (just re-read)
> d) git head + patch with a lwlock (or whatever works) instead of aio_susp
On 05/31/14 20:44, johnlumby wrote:
On 05/30/14 09:36, Claudio Freire wrote:
Good point. I have included the guts of your little test program
(modified to do polling) into the existing autoconf test program
that decides on the
#define USE_AIO_ATOMIC_BUILTIN_COMP_SWAP.
See config/c-library.m
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-05-30 08:12:35 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > Thanks, this looks good. But shouldn't the bit about output plugin
>> > options mention say something like:
>> >
>> > ( option
On 2014-02-21 15:14:15 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 2/17/14, 7:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >But do you really want to keep that snapshot around long enough to
> >copy the entire database? I bet you don't: if the database is big,
> >holding back xmin for long enough to copy the whole thing isn't li
Hi,
On 2014-01-31 16:28:08 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 04:00:03PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > FOR SHARE|UPDATE NOWAIT will still block if they have to follow a ctid
> > chain because the call to EvalPlanQualFetch doesn't take a param for
> > noWait, so it doesn't know
On 2014-05-30 08:12:35 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Thanks, this looks good. But shouldn't the bit about output plugin
> > options mention say something like:
> >
> > ( option_name option_argument [, ...] )
> >
> > ...instead of just:
> >
