Dear all:
A quick question about shared buffers in PostgreSQL:
I want to get the number of misses for the buffer pool of PostgreSQL.
Is there any methods or
performance tools I can use to get the information?
Best Wishes
yyan
崔岩ccuiy...@sina.com wrote:
I want to get the number of misses for the buffer pool of PostgreSQL.
Is there any methods or
performance tools I can use to get the information?
Yes. Please see the manual chapters on Monitoring database activity.
The pgstatio_* views in particular.
Greg Stark wrote:
On 31 Dec 2008, at 13:21, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Both of these bugs are minor, but the effect of either/both of them is
to cause more AccessExclusiveLocks than we might expect.
For Hot Standby this means that many VACUUMs take AccessExclusiveLocks
on
Hi,
Happy new year!
Le 31 déc. 08 à 17:04, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us a écrit :
However, it seems kind of inconsistent to do this for window functions
unless we also make \df start putting parens around the argument lists
for regular functions. Comments?
A way to distinguish between window
I am not thrilled about inventing a new column for this, but how about
a display like so:
regression=# \df nth_value
List of functions
Schema | Name| Result data type | Argument data types
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 14:45 -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
On 31 Dec 2008, at 13:21, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Both of these bugs are minor, but the effect of either/both of them is
to cause more AccessExclusiveLocks than we might expect.
For Hot Standby this means that many
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 21:45 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Can I fix?
Yes please.
Fix attached.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
Index: src/backend/commands/vacuumlazy.c
On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 12:00 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Greg Stark wrote:
On 31 Dec 2008, at 13:21, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Both of these bugs are minor, but the effect of either/both of them is
to cause more AccessExclusiveLocks than we might expect.
For Hot
The kerberos configuration options (krb_caseinsens_users, krb_realm,
krb_server_keyfile, krb_srvname, krb_server_hostname) are all set as
PGC_POSTMASTER. From what I can see, the only places where kerberos code
is called is from ClientAuthentication().
That means these parameters shouldn't need
I have updated all the source files for a 2009 copyright; seems the
commit message was suppressed due to its size. Tom found a few more and
I have adjusted for those as well.
--
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
The kerberos configuration options (krb_caseinsens_users, krb_realm,
krb_server_keyfile, krb_srvname, krb_server_hostname) are all set as
PGC_POSTMASTER. From what I can see, the only places where kerberos code
is called is from
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:08:20 -0500 Tom Lane wrote:
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum adsm...@wars-nicht.de writes:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:19:48 -0500 Tom Lane wrote:
If we're going to do this, shouldn't it happen uniformly for *all*
ACL displays in describe.c?
Makes sense, imho.
Done.
Oh,
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?
--
Greg
On 1 Jan 2009, at 13:25, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I have updated all the source files for a 2009 copyright; seems the
commit message was suppressed due to its
Greg Stark wrote:
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?
One work, I assume.
--
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Greg Stark wrote:
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?
One work, I assume.
I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every source
file? ISTM that if it were one work there
Andrew Chernow wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Greg Stark wrote:
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?
One work, I assume.
I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every source
file?
On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 14:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Chernow wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Greg Stark wrote:
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?
One work, I assume.
I am not a lawyer, but
Greg Stark greg.st...@enterprisedb.com writes:
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?
[ shrug... ] We've always done it this way.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 14:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Chernow wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Greg Stark wrote:
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?
One work, I assume.
I tried this on my laptop running FC9, and because I forgot to run
autoconf, I got this error message when I tried to turn on
posix_fadvise.
rhaas=# set effective_io_concurrency to 3;
ERROR: could not determine if this system has a working posix_fadvise
DETAIL: Check configure.log produced by
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Am I correct in thinking that the only thing we're really checking for
here is whether a trivial posix_fadvise() call returns success? If
so, is this test really worth doing?
Runtime tests performed during configure are generally a bad idea to
start
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Well, what this function essentially does is a text transformation of the
options, something like this:
peter=# SELECT array_to_string(fdwoptions || srvoptions || umoptions, ' ')
FROM pg_foreign_data_wrapper fdw, pg_foreign_server srv, pg_user_mappings um
WHERE
Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 19:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
The status of this patch isn't clear --- are you still working on it?
There certainly appear to be a lot of debug leftovers that need to
be removed, error messages to clean up, etc.
It passes all
Andrew Chernow wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Greg Stark wrote:
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?
One work, I assume.
I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every
source file? ISTM that if it
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Chernow wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every source
file? ISTM that if it were one work there would only have to be one notice.
Because people often take source files and copy them for use in other
projects.
As
Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com writes:
... So Im going to mark it as
ready for commmiter.
Has this patch been tested on Windows? (Or more generally, with EXEC_BACKEND?)
The reason I ask is that eyeballing the code suggests a couple of major
problems in that area:
* the startup/shutdown
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Am I correct in thinking that the only thing we're really checking for
here is whether a trivial posix_fadvise() call returns success? If
so, is this test really worth doing?
Runtime
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 17:28, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com writes:
... So Im going to mark it as
ready for commmiter.
Has this patch been tested on Windows? (Or more generally, with
EXEC_BACKEND?)
I was under the impression thats where Itagaki-san
I wrote:
* in an EXEC_BACKEND situation, we re-execute
process_shared_preload_libraries() when starting a fresh backend
(but not in other kinds of child processes, which is why the other
problem is a problem). This means re-executing the _PG_init function,
which will try to redefine the
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 19:59, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wrote:
* in an EXEC_BACKEND situation, we re-execute
process_shared_preload_libraries() when starting a fresh backend
(but not in other kinds of child processes, which is why the other
problem is a problem). This means
In theory there should be no benefit on a single spindle system. There
could be a slight benefit due to reordering of I/o but only on a raid
array would you see a significant speedup -- which should be about
equal to the number of spindles.
What would be interesting is whether you see a
On Thursday 01 January 2009 15:28:51 Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 14:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Chernow wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Greg Stark wrote:
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Bryce Cutt pandas...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is the next patch version.
Thanks for posting this update. This is definitely getting better,
but I still see some style issues. We can work on fixing those once
the rest of the details have been finalized.
However,
Now that there's an actual run-time sysconf check for the buggy glibc called
by the guc function we arguably don't need the autoconf check_run check
anymore anyways.
Isn't that the check I just removed for you, or are you talking about
some other check that can also be removed?
...Robert
--
I just did a fresh import of my alpha database into 8.4 and noticed
that the size of the database had increased significantly:
8.4: 6.3G
8.3: 4.9G
Tracking it down the main difference seems to a toast tables namely this one:
ls -ltrh 8.3/base/16516/430156
-rw--- 1 postgres postgres 145M
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 21:30, Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com wrote:
http://git.postgresql.org/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=3b6942b3f2fe733572c05a71cb2d12e5ece60cdbits
... typoed that its
http://git.postgresql.org/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=3b6942b3f2fe733572c05a71cb2d12e5ece60cd
--
Sent
Sorry for top-posting -- phone mail client sucks.
I thought the autoconf ac_run_check was the test that people were
questioning. That calls posix_fadvise to see if it crashes at
configure time.
The guc run-time check is checking for known-buggy versions of glibc
using sysconf to check
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Greg Stark greg.st...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Sorry for top-posting -- phone mail client sucks.
I thought the autoconf ac_run_check was the test that people were
questioning. That calls posix_fadvise to see if it crashes at configure
time.
Yes, that's what I
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 21:30, Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com wrote:
My hunch is its related to
http://git.postgresql.org/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=3b6942b3f2fe733572c05a71cb2d12e5ece60cd
or for the CVS inclined
http::/archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2008-03/msg00121.php
But if
On Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 11:10:38PM +0200, Martin Pihlak wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Well, what this function essentially does is a text transformation of the
options, something like this:
peter=# SELECT array_to_string(fdwoptions || srvoptions || umoptions, ' ')
FROM
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 22:44, Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com wrote:
Looking at the patch we dont compress things 1M anymore so I thought
maybe I was hitting that. But no luck there are only 39 rows where
the row size 1M... With those 39 being about 22M each.
Oh my... 25 * 40 = 1000M
So
41 matches
Mail list logo
