Re: [HACKERS] patch for new feature: Buffer Cache Hibernation

2011-06-05 Thread Mitsuru IWASAKI
Hi, On 05/07/2011 03:32 AM, Mitsuru IWASAKI wrote: For 1, I've just finish my work. The latest patch is available at: http://people.freebsd.org/~iwasaki/postgres/buffer-cache-hibernation-postgresql-20110507.patch Reminder here--we can't accept code based on it being published to a

Re: [HACKERS] Review: psql include file using relative path

2011-06-05 Thread Gurjeet Singh
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks a lot for the review. My responses are inline below.

Re: [HACKERS] Assert failure when rechecking an exclusion constraint

2011-06-05 Thread Tom Lane
Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes: On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 05:49:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: So in short, I'm thinking move lines 1760-1772 (in HEAD) of index.c to the end of index_build(), then insert a ResetReindexProcessing() call in front of them; or maybe only do ResetReindexProcessing

Re: [HACKERS] Review: psql include file using relative path

2011-06-05 Thread Josh Kupershmidt
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com wrote: Tweaks applied, but omitted the C variable names as I don't think that adds much value. Your rewordings are fine, but the the article the

Re: [HACKERS] SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock

2011-06-05 Thread Kevin Grittner
Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 03.06.2011 23:44, Kevin Grittner wrote: Heikki Linnakangas wrote: I think you'll need to just memorize the lock deletion command in a backend-local list, and perform the deletion in a post-commit function. Hmm. As mentioned earlier in the thread, cleaning

[HACKERS] VIP: enhanced errors

2011-06-05 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello all I am working on new diagnostics fields in errors - CONSTRAINT_NAME, SCHEMA_NAME, TABLE_NAME and COLUMN_NAME. These fields is shown when verbosity mode is active. Actually this works for table constraints, not null constraint and for RI constraints. postgres=# delete from xxx; ERROR:

Re: [HACKERS] Assert failure when rechecking an exclusion constraint

2011-06-05 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes: Sounds reasonable. Need to remove the index from pendingReindexedIndexes, not just call ResetReindexProcessing(). [ looks again... ] Uh, right. I was thinking that the pending list was just pending and not in progress indexes. I wonder if

Re: [HACKERS] Assert failure when rechecking an exclusion constraint

2011-06-05 Thread Jeff Davis
On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 14:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Attached are two versions of a patch to fix this. The second one modifies the code that tracks what's pending as per the above thought. I'm not entirely sure which one I like better ... any comments? I think I'm missing something simple: if

[HACKERS] Range Types and extensions

2011-06-05 Thread Jeff Davis
I'd like to take another look at Range Types and whether part of it should be an extension. Some of these issues relate to extensions in general, not just range types. First of all, what are the advantages to being in core? 1. ANYRANGE + CREATE TYPE ... AS RANGE

Re: [HACKERS] reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch

2011-06-05 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
On 06/03/2011 03:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote: [...] As you can see, this works out to a bit more than a 4% improvement on this two-core box. I also got access (thanks to Nate Boley) to a 24-core box and ran the same test with scale factor 100 and shared_buffers=8GB. Here are the results of

Re: [HACKERS] Assert failure when rechecking an exclusion constraint

2011-06-05 Thread Tom Lane
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes: On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 14:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Attached are two versions of a patch to fix this. The second one modifies the code that tracks what's pending as per the above thought. I'm not entirely sure which one I like better ... any comments? I

Re: [HACKERS] reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch

2011-06-05 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 05.06.2011 22:04, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: and one for the -j80 case(also patched). 485798 48.9667 postgres s_lock 60327 6.0808 postgres LWLockAcquire 57049 5.7503 postgres LWLockRelease 18357 1.8503 postgres

[HACKERS] Auto adjust send buffer size to congention window

2011-06-05 Thread Radosław Smogura
Hi, I've got idea to auto adjust send buffer size to size of TCP congention window. Will this increase performance and in which way. I suppose throughput may be increased, but latency decreased. What do You think? Regards, Radek -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch

2011-06-05 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
On 06/05/2011 09:12 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 05.06.2011 22:04, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: and one for the -j80 case(also patched). 485798 48.9667 postgres s_lock 60327 6.0808 postgres LWLockAcquire 57049 5.7503 postgres

Re: [HACKERS] BLOB support

2011-06-05 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes: Yes. I think the appropriate problem statement is provide streaming access to large field values, as an alternative to just fetching/storing the entire value at once. I see no good reason to import the entire messy notion of LOBS/CLOBS. (The fact that

Re: [HACKERS] reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch

2011-06-05 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc wrote: On 06/05/2011 09:12 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 05.06.2011 22:04, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: and one for the -j80 case(also patched). 485798   48.9667  postgres                 s_lock 60327     6.0808  

Re: [HACKERS] Review: psql include file using relative path

2011-06-05 Thread Gurjeet Singh
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com wrote: Tweaks applied, but omitted the C variable names as I

Re: [HACKERS] Assert failure when rechecking an exclusion constraint

2011-06-05 Thread Noah Misch
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 02:17:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes: Sounds reasonable. Need to remove the index from pendingReindexedIndexes, not just call ResetReindexProcessing(). [ looks again... ] Uh, right. I was thinking that the pending

Re: [HACKERS] Auto adjust send buffer size to congention window

2011-06-05 Thread Tom Lane
=?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?= rsmog...@softperience.eu writes: I've got idea to auto adjust send buffer size to size of TCP congention window. Will this increase performance and in which way. I suppose throughput may be increased, but latency decreased. What do You think? I think if that

Re: [HACKERS] SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock

2011-06-05 Thread Kevin Grittner
Kevin Grittner wrote: Maybe I should submit a patch without added complexity of the scheduled cleanup and we can discuss that as a separate patch? Here's a patch which adds the missing support for DDL. Cleanup of predicate locks at commit time for transactions which ran DROP TABLE or TRUNCATE

Re: [HACKERS] reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch

2011-06-05 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: Could you compile with LWLOCK_STATS, rerun these tests, total up the blk numbers by LWLockId, and post the results?  (Actually, totalling up the shacq and exacq numbers would be useful as well, if you wouldn't mind.) I

Re: [HACKERS] Assert failure when rechecking an exclusion constraint

2011-06-05 Thread Jeff Davis
On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 15:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: so once we've set the index as the currentlyReindexedIndex, there's no need for it still to be in pendingReindexedIndexes. OK. The second version of the patch looks good to me. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing

Re: [HACKERS] Assert failure when rechecking an exclusion constraint

2011-06-05 Thread Tom Lane
Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes: On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 02:17:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Attached are two versions of a patch to fix this. The second one modifies the code that tracks what's pending as per the above thought. I'm not entirely sure which one I like better ... any

Re: [HACKERS] reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch

2011-06-05 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: I'm definitely interested in investigating what to do about that, but I don't think it's this patch's problem to fix all of our lock manager bottlenecks. I did some further investigation of this. It appears that more

Re: [HACKERS] heap vacuum cleanup locks

2011-06-05 Thread Itagaki Takahiro
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:03, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: If other buffer pins do exist, then we can't defragment the page, but that doesn't mean no useful work can be done: we can still mark used line pointers dead, or dead line pointers unused.  We cannot defragment, but that

Re: [HACKERS] Range Types and extensions

2011-06-05 Thread Darren Duncan
Jeff Davis wrote: I'd like to take another look at Range Types and whether part of it should be an extension. Some of these issues relate to extensions in general, not just range types. First of all, what are the advantages to being in core? I believe that ranges aka intervals are widely

Re: [HACKERS] Auto adjust send buffer size to congention window

2011-06-05 Thread Radosław Smogura
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us Monday 06 of June 2011 04:07:41 =?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?= rsmog...@softperience.eu writes: I've got idea to auto adjust send buffer size to size of TCP congention window. Will this increase performance and in which way. I suppose throughput may be

Re: [HACKERS] Range Types and extensions

2011-06-05 Thread Pavel Stehule
2011/6/6 Darren Duncan dar...@darrenduncan.net: Jeff Davis wrote: I'd like to take another look at Range Types and whether part of it should be an extension. Some of these issues relate to extensions in general, not just range types. First of all, what are the advantages to being in core?

Re: [HACKERS] Range Types and extensions

2011-06-05 Thread Darren Duncan
Pavel Stehule wrote: 2011/6/6 Darren Duncan dar...@darrenduncan.net: Jeff Davis wrote: I'd like to take another look at Range Types and whether part of it should be an extension. Some of these issues relate to extensions in general, not just range types. First of all, what are the advantages

Re: [HACKERS] SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock

2011-06-05 Thread Dan Ports
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 12:45:41PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: Is this possible? If a transaction gets its snapshot while OID of N is assigned to relation X, can that transaction wind up seeing an OID of N as a reference to relation Y? If not, there aren't any false positives possible.