Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com writes:
I am working on making resource owner remember a limited number of
locks, so it can reassign them more efficiently.
Check, per previous discussion.
Currently I'm having resowner.c remember the LOCALLOCKTAG, because I
thought that that was the only
Hi,
On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 22:03 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
A control variable was added in this commit:
commit db84ba65ab5c0ad0b34d68ab5a687bc5f4ca3ba6
Author: Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net
Thanks Bruce, apparently I missed it.
Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Principal
On 2012-05-30 21:26, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
If we would have an ideal optimizer, I'd still like the optimizer to
wipe out redundant clauses transparently, rather than RLSBYPASS
permissions, because it just controls all-or-nothing stuff.
For example, if tuples are categorized to unclassified,
On 31.05.2012 08:06, Erik Rijkers wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 03:30, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Erik Rijkerse...@xs4all.nl wrote:
directory
2012-05-30 23:40:57.909 CEST 3909 CONTEXT: writing block 5152 of relation
base/21268/26569
xlog redo multi-insert
2012/5/31 Yeb Havinga yebhavi...@gmail.com:
On 2012-05-30 21:26, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
If we would have an ideal optimizer, I'd still like the optimizer to
wipe out redundant clauses transparently, rather than RLSBYPASS
permissions, because it just controls all-or-nothing stuff.
For example,
We recently fixed a couple of O(N^2) loops in pg_dump, but those covered
extremely specific cases that might or might not have anything to do
with what you're seeing. The complainant was extremely helpful about
tracking down the problems:
On 29.05.2012 23:46, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alexander Korotkovaekorot...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
While I'm looking at this, is the first test involving
On 30 May 2012 17:19, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 30 May 2012 15:25, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
1. It seems wrong to do it in xact_redo_commit_internal(). It won't
matter if commit_siblings0 since there won't be any other backends
with transaction IDs anyway,
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
I note that the calculations assume that leaf tuples and internal tuples
have similar sizes. We calculate the average leaf tuple size, and use that
to calculate the fan-out of internal pages. On
Hi all,
I am trying to call heap_form_tuple to create a tuple from a datum.
My call to heap_form_tuple looks like:
val1=0;
tupledesc1=BlessTupleDesc(node-ss.ss_currentRelation-rd_att);
tuple=heap_form_tuple(tupledesc1,p1,val1);
p1 is a pointer to a Datum instance which is created from a char
2012/5/30 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
I tested the effect of this by setting up a series of 5-minute
read-only pgbench run at scale factor 300 with 8GB of shared buffers
on the IBM POWER7 machine.
I know it doesn't matter, but out of curiosity what OS you used?
best regards,
--
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Dickson S. Guedes lis...@guedesoft.net wrote:
2012/5/30 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
I tested the effect of this by setting up a series of 5-minute
read-only pgbench run at scale factor 300 with 8GB of shared buffers
on the IBM POWER7 machine.
I know it
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Erik Rijkers e...@xs4all.nl wrote:
In my test, I run the bash code (the bits that I posted earlier) in a while
loop so that the table
is CREATEd, COPYied into, and DROPped every few seconds -- perhaps that
wasn't clear. That loop
is necessary; a few
On 31 May 2012 11:19, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I've looked at this more closely now and I can see that the call to
XLogFlush() that is made from xact_redo_commit_internal() doesn't ever
actually flush WAL, so whether we delay or not is completely
irrelevant.
So un-agreed. No
On 31.05.2012 13:42, Atri Sharma wrote:
I am trying to call heap_form_tuple to create a tuple from a datum.
My call to heap_form_tuple looks like:
val1=0;
tupledesc1=BlessTupleDesc(node-ss.ss_currentRelation-rd_att);
tuple=heap_form_tuple(tupledesc1,p1,val1);
p1 is a pointer to a Datum
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 31.05.2012 13:42, Atri Sharma wrote:
I am trying to call heap_form_tuple to create a tuple from a datum.
My call to heap_form_tuple looks like:
val1=0;
On 31.05.2012 14:42, Atri Sharma wrote:
Another thing I wanted to ask was that would you recommend building
tuples from strings directly or converting them to Datum first and
then build the tuples from Datum instances?
It depends. If you have all the values in strings already, then
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 31.05.2012 14:42, Atri Sharma wrote:
Another thing I wanted to ask was that would you recommend building
tuples from strings directly or converting them to Datum first and
then build the tuples
On 31 May 2012 12:14, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Erik Rijkers e...@xs4all.nl wrote:
In my test, I run the bash code (the bits that I posted earlier) in a while
loop so that the table
is CREATEd, COPYied into, and DROPped every few seconds --
On Thu, May 31, 2012 13:14, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Erik Rijkers e...@xs4all.nl wrote:
In my test, I run the bash code (the bits that I posted earlier) in a while
loop so that the
table
is CREATEd, COPYied into, and DROPped every few seconds -- perhaps that
On 30 May 2012 12:10, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Hmm, we do this in smgrDoPendingDeletes:
for (i = 0; i = MAX_FORKNUM; i++)
{
smgrdounlink(srel, i, false);
}
So we drop the buffers for each relation fork separately, which means that
we scan the
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Erik Rijkers e...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 13:14, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Erik Rijkers e...@xs4all.nl wrote:
In my test, I run the bash code (the bits that I posted earlier) in a while
loop so that the
table
is
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I've looked at this more closely now and I can see that the call to
XLogFlush() that is made from xact_redo_commit_internal() doesn't ever
actually flush WAL, so whether we delay or not is completely
irrelevant.
So
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson
joh...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The header file crtdefs.h in MinGW typedefs errcode which conflicts
with Postgres' elog.h.
Eep. Maybe this is not
On 31 May 2012 13:16, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I've looked at this more closely now and I can see that the call to
XLogFlush() that is made from xact_redo_commit_internal() doesn't ever
actually flush
On 31 May 2012 13:16, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Frankly, I think this whole thing should be pushed to 9.3. The
commit_delay and commit_siblings knobs suck, but they've sucked for a
long time, and it won't
Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com writes:
My call to heap_form_tuple looks like:
val1=0;
tupledesc1=BlessTupleDesc(node-ss.ss_currentRelation-rd_att);
tuple=heap_form_tuple(tupledesc1,p1,val1);
p1 is a pointer to a Datum instance which is created from a char array.
Does that actually match
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org wrote:
Just for record, I rerun the test again with my single-LOCK patch, and
now total runtime of pg_dump is 113 minutes.
188 minutes(9.0)-125 minutes(git master)-113 minutes(with my patch).
So far, I'm glad to see 40% time
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
The one thing that still seems a little odd to me is that this caused
a pin count to get orphaned. It seems reasonable that ignoring the
AccessExclusiveLock could result in not-found errors trying to open a
missing relation, and even fsync requests on
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 31 May 2012 13:16, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Frankly, I think this whole thing should be pushed to 9.3. The
commit_delay
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 31 May 2012 13:16, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, I think this whole thing should be pushed to 9.3.
What matters is that we have a patch that provides a massive
performance gain in write performance in just a few lines of code,
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org wrote:
Just for record, I rerun the test again with my single-LOCK patch, and
now total runtime of pg_dump is 113 minutes.
188 minutes(9.0)-125 minutes(git master)-113 minutes(with my patch).
So far, I'm glad to see 40% time
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
The one thing that still seems a little odd to me is that this caused
a pin count to get orphaned. It seems reasonable that ignoring the
AccessExclusiveLock could result in not-found
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org wrote:
Just for record, I rerun the test again with my single-LOCK patch, and
now total runtime of pg_dump is 113 minutes.
188 minutes(9.0)-125
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Sergey Koposov kopo...@ast.cam.ac.uk wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012, Robert Haas wrote:
I'd really like to find out exactly where all those s_lock calls are
coming from. Is there any way you can get oprofile to output a
partial stack backtrace? If you have perf
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Robert Klemme
shortcut...@googlemail.com wrote:
OK, my fault was to assume you wanted to measure only your part, while
apparently you meant overall savings. But Tom had asked for separate
measurements if I understood him correctly. Also, that measurement of
Claudio Freire klaussfre...@gmail.com writes:
It's not clear whether Tom is already working on that O(N^2) fix in locking.
I'm not; Jeff Janes is. But you shouldn't be holding your breath
anyway, since it's 9.3 material at this point.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson
joh...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
MinGW W64's sys/stat.h #defines stat to be _stati64 and there is
subsequently a compilation error in port.h:
note: expected 'struct _stati64 *' but argument is of type 'struct
stat *' error:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Claudio Freire klaussfre...@gmail.com writes:
It's not clear whether Tom is already working on that O(N^2) fix in locking.
I'm not; Jeff Janes is. But you shouldn't be holding your breath
anyway, since it's 9.3 material at
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
My preference is RLSBYPASS permission rather than the approach
with functions that return policy clause at run-time, because it needs
to invalidate prepared statement at random timing.
In case of this function approach,
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm not; Jeff Janes is. But you shouldn't be holding your breath
anyway, since it's 9.3 material at this point.
I agree we can't back-patch that change, but then I think we ought to
On 31 May 2012 15:00, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 31 May 2012 13:16, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, I think this whole thing should be pushed to 9.3.
What matters is that we have a patch that provides a massive
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:50:51AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm not; Jeff Janes is. �But you shouldn't be holding your breath
anyway, since it's 9.3 material at this point.
I
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The performance patches we applied to pg_dump over the past couple weeks
were meant to relieve pain in situations where the big server-side
lossage wasn't the dominant factor in runtime (ie, partial dumps).
But this one is
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm not; Jeff Janes is. But you shouldn't be holding your breath
anyway, since it's 9.3 material at this point.
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:04:12AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm not; Jeff Janes is. But you shouldn't be
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 31 May 2012 15:00, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
If we want to finish the beta cycle in a reasonable time period and get
back to actual development, we have to refrain from adding more
possibly-destabilizing development work to 9.2. And that
On 31 May 2012 14:58, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Fixing regressions before release is essential; improving performance
is not - especially when the improvement relates to a little-used
feature that you were proposing to get rid of two weeks ago.
Yes, the fact that I wanted to get
Claudio Freire klaussfre...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The performance patches we applied to pg_dump over the past couple weeks
were meant to relieve pain in situations where the big server-side
lossage wasn't the dominant factor in
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
No, Tatsuo's patch attacks a phase dominated by latency in some
setups.
No, it does not. The reason it's a win is that it avoids the O(N^2)
behavior in the server. Whether the bandwidth savings is worth worrying
about
On 31 May 2012 16:26, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 31 May 2012 16:23, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
In what way is it possibly destabilising?
I'm prepared to believe that it only affects performance, but it could
be
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:21:33AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
2) Only support bitmap scans and not ordinary tid scans (the way gin
indexes already do).
-1 on losing amgettuple.
On 31 May 2012 16:23, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
In what way is it possibly destabilising?
I'm prepared to believe that it only affects performance, but it could
be destabilizing to that. It needs proper review and testing, and the
next CF
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:57:37PM -0400, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 05/11/2012 05:32 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
But in the interest of actually being productive - what *is* the
usecase for needing a 5 minute
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:57:37PM -0400, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 05/11/2012 05:32 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
But in the interest of
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Sergey Koposov kopo...@ast.cam.ac.uk wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012, Robert Haas wrote:
Thanks. How did you generate this perf report? It's cool, because I
haven't figured out how to make perf generate a report that is easily
email-able, and it seems you have.
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Sergey Koposov kopo...@ast.cam.ac.uk wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012, Robert Haas wrote:
Thanks. How did you generate this perf report? It's cool, because I
haven't figured out how to make perf generate a report that is easily
email-able, and it seems you have.
chinnaobi wrote:
You mean when the primary which is going to switch its role to
standby might not have sent all the WAL records to the standby and
If it is switched to standby it has more WAL records than the
standby which is now serves as primary. Is it ??
What happens when there is a
On Thu, 31 May 2012, Robert Haas wrote:
Oh, ho. So from this we can see that the problem is that we're
getting huge amounts of spinlock contention when pinning and unpinning
index pages.
It would be nice to have a self-contained reproducible test case for
this, so that we could experiment
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 05:55:07PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Seems buffers_alloc is the number of calls to StrategyGetBuffer(), which
tells how many time we have requested a buffer. Not sure how that helps
measure buffer pressure.
Once the linked list is empty, every request for a
Dear Kevin,
Thank you for your reply. Yeah I am writing an application using powershell,
it's true it is not trivial and especially a guy like me who has no idea on
database.
You raised all the cases which I am muddling with, But currently I am
testing this setup:
Always standby server is
Sorry to mention, In my setup the primary and standby servers receive same
traffic, so no issue with the
network fault between the primary and the standby, but not between the
primary and some of the clients updating it
--
View this message in context:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com writes:
My call to heap_form_tuple looks like:
val1=0;
tupledesc1=BlessTupleDesc(node-ss.ss_currentRelation-rd_att);
tuple=heap_form_tuple(tupledesc1,p1,val1);
p1 is a pointer to a Datum
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Sergey Koposov kopo...@ast.cam.ac.uk wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012, Robert Haas wrote:
Oh, ho. So from this we can see that the problem is that we're
getting huge amounts of spinlock contention when pinning and unpinning
index pages.
It would be nice to have
Strangeness:
template1=# create collation nb_NO.utf8 (locale=nb_NO.utf8);
ERROR: could not create locale nb_no.utf8: Success
Clearly it's not successful...
On some runs, I get:
template1=# create collation nb_NO.utf8 (locale=nb_NO.utf8);
ERROR: could not create locale nb_no.utf8: No such
On Thu, 31 May 2012, Simon Riggs wrote:
That struck me as a safe and easy optimisation. This was a problem I'd
been trying to optimise for 9.2, so I've written a patch that appears
simple and clean enough to be applied directly.
Thanks! The patch indeed improved the timings,
The dropping of
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson
joh...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Is this something to discuss with the MinGW W64 team?
My viewpoint on this (which is different than Tom's) is that we're
probably not entitled to assume
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
template1=# create collation nb_NO.utf8 (locale=nb_NO.utf8);
ERROR: could not create locale nb_no.utf8: Success
What platform?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
template1=# create collation nb_NO.utf8 (locale=nb_NO.utf8);
ERROR: could not create locale nb_no.utf8: Success
What platform?
D'uh, sorry.
Ubuntu 12.04.
--
Magnus Hagander
Le jeudi 31 mai 2012 19:11:07, Bruce Momjian a écrit :
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 05:55:07PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Seems buffers_alloc is the number of calls to StrategyGetBuffer(),
which tells how many time we have requested a buffer. Not sure how
that helps measure buffer
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Sergey Koposov kopo...@ast.cam.ac.uk
wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012, Robert Haas wrote:
Oh, ho. So from this we can see that the problem is that we're
getting huge amounts of spinlock
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson
joh...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Is this something to discuss with the MinGW W64 team?
My viewpoint on this (which is
On startup, psql shows the SSL information:
$ psql 'sslmode=require host=localhost'
psql (9.2beta1)
SSL connection (cipher: DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA, bits: 256)
However, \conninfo does not mention SSL:
postgres= \conninfo
You are connected to database postgres
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On startup, psql shows the SSL information:
$ psql 'sslmode=require host=localhost'
psql (9.2beta1)
SSL connection (cipher: DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA, bits: 256)
However, \conninfo does not mention SSL:
On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 10:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
We've previously discussed the possible desirability of extending
relations in larger increments, rather than one block at a time, for
performance reasons. I attempted to determine how much performance we
could possibly buy this way, and
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Sergey Koposov kopo...@ast.cam.ac.uk
wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012, Robert Haas wrote:
Oh, ho. So from this we
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
OTOH, I wonder whether we really need to send keepalive messages
periodically to calculate a network latency. ISTM we don't unless a network
latency varies from situation to situation so frequently and we'd like to
2012/5/31 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
If we would have an ideal optimizer, I'd still like the optimizer to
wipe out redundant clauses transparently, rather than RLSBYPASS
permissions, because it just controls all-or-nothing stuff.
For example, if tuples are categorized to unclassified,
2012/5/31 Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp:
2012/5/31 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
If we would have an ideal optimizer, I'd still like the optimizer to
wipe out redundant clauses transparently, rather than RLSBYPASS
permissions, because it just controls all-or-nothing stuff.
For
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
Hm, couple questions: how do you determine if/when to un-nail a
buffer, and who makes that decision (bgwriter?)
Well, I think some experimentation might be required, but my first
thought is to tie it into buffer eviction.
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
However, this doesn't help people configure shared buffers larger (e.g.
35%) if their working set is larger. Right now, I don't see how a user
would know this is happening. On the flip side, they might have a
smaller
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I applied Jeff's patch but changed this to address concerns about the
program getting stuck running for too long in the function:
#define plpgsql_loops 512
This would be better named as plpgsql_batch_size or something
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Sergey Koposov kopo...@ast.cam.ac.uk wrote:
Hi,
I did another test using the same data and the same code, which I've
provided before and the performance of the single thread seems to be
degrading quadratically with the number of threads.
Here are the
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, ho. So from this we can see that the problem is that we're
getting huge amounts of spinlock contention when pinning and unpinning
index pages.
It would be nice to have a self-contained reproducible test case for
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
This test case is unusual because it hits a whole series of buffers
very hard. However, there are other cases where this happens on a
single buffer that is just very, very hot, like the root block of a
btree index,
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Sergey Koposov kopo...@ast.cam.ac.uk wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012, Simon Riggs wrote:
That struck me as a safe and easy optimisation. This was a problem I'd
been trying to optimise for 9.2, so I've written a patch that appears
simple and clean enough to be
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Sergey Koposov kopo...@ast.cam.ac.uk wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012, Jeff Janes wrote:
But anyway, is idt_match a fairly static table? If so, I'd partition
that into 16 tables, and then have each one of your tasks join against
a different one of those tables.
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Now, measuring time skew is potentially a useful thing to do, if we
believe that this will actually give us an accurate measurement of
what the time skew is, because there are a whole series of things that
people want to do which involve subtracting a
On 31 May 2012 19:09, Sergey Koposov kopo...@ast.cam.ac.uk wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012, Simon Riggs wrote:
That struck me as a safe and easy optimisation. This was a problem I'd
been trying to optimise for 9.2, so I've written a patch that appears
simple and clean enough to be applied
89 matches
Mail list logo
