On 08/03/2015 04:25 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote:
On 07/28/2015 10:28 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 07/27/2015 01:20 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote:
Hello.
In the attached patch I've made a refactoring for tranches.
The prefix for them was extended, and I've did a split of LWLockAssign
its name. Code
generation
is also a solution, and if commiters will support it I'll merge it to
main patch.
--
Ildus Kurbangaliev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make
On 08/04/2015 11:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru wrote:
A new version of the patch. I used your idea with macros, and with tranches that
allowed us to remove array with names (they can be written directly
On 07/28/2015 10:28 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 07/27/2015 01:20 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote:
Hello.
In the attached patch I've made a refactoring for tranches.
The prefix for them was extended, and I've did a split of LWLockAssign
to two
functions (one with tranche and second for user
On 08/05/2015 09:33 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru wrote:
About `memcpy`, PgBackendStatus struct already have a bunch of multi-byte
variables, so it will be
not consistent anyway if somebody will want to copy
with macros, and with tranches that
allowed us to remove array with names (they can be written directly to the
corresponding
tranche).
Ildus Kurbangaliev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
extend_pg_stat_activity_v7.patch
Description: Binary data
Hello.
In the attached patch I've made a refactoring for tranches.
The prefix for them was extended, and I've did a split of LWLockAssign
to two
functions (one with tranche and second for user defined LWLocks).
--
Ildus Kurbangaliev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
On Jul 24, 2015, at 7:26 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru wrote:
Hello.
I’ve changed the previous patch. `group` field in LWLock is removed, so the
size of LWLock will not increase.
Instead
are going to extend
waits monitoring, add more views, some profiling. That’s why waits have to be
groupable by classes.
Ildus Kurbangaliev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make
for LWLocks that are not individual is obtained from
corresponding tranches.
Ildus Kurbangaliev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
extend_pg_stat_activity_v3.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers
On 07/22/2015 09:10 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Hello,
At Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:28:25 +0300, Ildus Kurbangaliev
i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru wrote in 55ae2cd9.4050...@postgrespro.ru
On 07/21/2015 01:18 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-07-21 13:11:36 +0300, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote
On 07/23/2015 05:57 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
At Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:50:35 +0300, Ildus Kurbangalievi.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru
wrote in55afadbb.9090...@postgrespro.ru
On 07/22/2015 09:10 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Hello,
At Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:28:25 +0300, Ildus Kurbangaliev
of wait.
Other problem of pg_stat_activity that we can not see all processes
there (checkpointer for example). So we anyway need separate view for
monitoring purposes.
--
Ildus Kurbangaliev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
On Jul 14, 2015, at 5:25 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I really think we should do the simple thing first. If we make this
complicated and add lots of bells and whistles, it is going to be much
harder to get anything committed, because
from pg_stat_activity;
pid | wait_event
---+--
17099 | LWLocks: BufferCleanupLock
17100 | Locks: Transaction
17101 | LWLocks: BufferPartitionLock
17102 |
17103 | Network: READ
17086 |
(6 rows)
--
Ildus Kurbangaliev
Postgres Professional: http
On 07/21/2015 01:18 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-07-21 13:11:36 +0300, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote:
/*
* Top-level transactions are identified by VirtualTransactionIDs comprising
diff --git a/src/include/storage/lwlock.h b/src/include/storage/lwlock.h
index cff3b99..55b0687 100644
On 11/09/2015 10:32 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote:
On Nov 9, 2015, at 7:56 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote:
Thanks for the review. I've attached a new version of SLRU patch. I've
removed add_postfix and fixed EXEC_BACKEND case.
Thanks.
> On Nov 9, 2015, at 7:56 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the review. I've attached a new version of SLRU patch. I've
>> removed add_postfix and fixed EXEC_BACKEND case.
>
> Than
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:59:59 -0500
Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
> <i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > Attached a new version of the patch that moves SLRU tranches and LWLocks to
just create a control struct in shared memory like in other places?
BufferDescriptors
and BufferBlocks can be kept there along with tranches definitions
and lwlocks. Buffer locks that are located in MainLWLockArray by offset
can be moved there too.
--
Ildus Kurbangaliev
Postgres Professi
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 18:55:55 -0500
Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
> <i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > What if just create a control struct in shared memory like in other places?
> > BufferDe
On 11/06/2015 08:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
<i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
There is a patch that splits SLRU LWLocks to separate tranches and
moves them to SLRU Ctl. It does some work from the main patch from
this thread, b
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:46:00 -0400
Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
> >
| 0 | 0 | 0
--
Ildus Kurbangaliev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
diff --git a/contrib/pg_stat_wait/Makefile b/contrib/pg_stat_wait/Makefile
new file mode 100644
index 000..16ad170
--- /dev/null
+++ b/contrib/pg_stat_wait/Makefile
@@ -0,0 +1,54
On Jul 9, 2015, at 5:18 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Haribabu Kommi kommi.harib...@gmail.com
mailto:kommi.harib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 1:52 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru wrote:
Hello.
Currently
Hello hackers!This patch contains LWLocks changes from pg_stat_activity thread(http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/ca+tgmoyd3gtz2_mjfuhf+rpe-bcy75ytjekvv9x-o+soncg...@mail.gmail.com/)and I think it deserves a separate thread.The goal is to split LWLocks from one array to logical pieces (with
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 23:18:02 +0200
"and...@anarazel.de" <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2015-09-06 22:57:04 +0300, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote:
> > Ok, I've kept only one tranche for individual LWLocks
>
> But you've added the lock names as a statically sized array
else
pgstat_report_wait_event(WaitEvent_OtherTrancheLWLock);
}
can be changed to something like:
#define LWLOCK_WAIT_ID(lock) \
(lock->tranche == 0? T_ID(lock) : lock->tranche +
NUM_INDIVIDUAL_LWLOCKS)
static void
LWLockReportStat(LWLock *lock)
{
int offset =
extent that PostgreSQL has
> > tolerated all kinds of loads we have thrown at it.
>
> Can anyone on hackers answer this question from June?
>
Hi, I'm working on patch now that removes this limit without changes (or
small changes) of on-disk layout. I think it'll be ready during
Added changes related to the latest master (for individual LWLocks
definitions)
Ildus Kurbangaliev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
lwlocks_refactor_v3.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers
same that my patch does. There is
two API calls (for a size determination and a tranche creation), except
MainLWLockArray is used only for individual LWLocks.
Also I suggest to keep RequestAddinLWLocks for backward compatibility.
Ildus Kurbangaliev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com <http://www.postgrespro.com/>
The Russian Postgres Company
> On Sep 13, 2015, at 11:32 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
> <i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>> Added changes related to the latest master (for individual LWLocks
>> definitions)
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 06:32:22 -0400
Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
> <i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > Yes, that is because I tried to go with current convention working
> > with shmem in Po
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:39:51 -0400
Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
> <i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 06:32:22 -0400
> > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
&
/* Extract entries of tsvector */
res = toast_decompress_datum_partial(attr, evh->data,
evh->dcState, sizeof(int32) + sizeof(WordEntry) * evh->count);
if (res == -1)
elog(ERROR, "compressed tsvector is corrupted");
--
On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 22:13:58 +0900
Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
> <i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > Attached patch adds support of partial decompression for datums.
> > It wil
On Sat, 5 Dec 2015 06:14:07 +0900
Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 12:10 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:
> > On 4 December 2015 at 13:47, Ildus Kurbangaliev
> > <i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
is
> 0xffffffff
>
There is a more improved version of the patch. Main idea is to present
uuid as two uint64 values, and make comparisons and penalty calculation
based on these values. This approach is much faster than using memcmp
for uuid comparisons.
--
Ildus Kurbanga
64.
> Seems, it's needed to do only one multiplication.
Thank you for review. Fixed.
--
Ildus Kurbangaliev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
diff --git a/contrib/btree_gist/Makefile b/contrib/btree_gist/Makefile
index a4b2cc7..43a6c5d 100644
---
hat would get us to a place where every lock in the system has a
> descriptive name, either via the tranche or because it's an
> individually named lock, which sounds excellent.
>
There is a patch that moves backend LWLocks into PGPROC and to a
separate tranche. I did tests, and it doesn't r
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 16:36:23 -0800
Paul Jungwirth <p...@illuminatedcomputing.com> wrote:
> On 12/23/2015 08:10 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote:
> > There is a more improved version of the patch. Main idea is to
> > present uuid as two uint64 values, and make comparisons and pe
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 12:12:23 -0500
Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
> <i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > We keep limited number of LWLocks in base shared memory, why not
> > keep their thanch
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 11:09:38 -0500
Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
> <i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > The moving base tranches to shared memory has been discussed many
> > times.
zel.de> wrote:
> On 2015-11-17 14:14:50 +0300, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote:
> > 1) We can avoid constants, and use a standard steps for tranches
> > creation.
>
> The constants are actually a bit useful, to easily determine
> builtin/non-builtin stuff.
Maybe I'm missing somethi
, ran pgindent and fixed
formatting errors.
--
---
Ildus Kurbangaliev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
diff --git a/src/backend/tsearch/Makefile b/src/backend/tsearch/Makefile
index 34fe4c5b3c..9585a25003 100644
--- a/src/backend/tsearch/Makefile
+++ b/s
I ran a bunch of these tests, and these results are stable on my
machine. So in these specific tests performance regression about 15%.
Same time I think this could be the worst case, because usually data
is on disk and conversion will not affect so much to performance.
--
---
Ildus Kurbangaliev
Postgres
that can be used to
build tsvectors. There were duplicated code fragments in places where
tsvector was built.
Also new patch frees some space in WordEntry that can be used to
save some additional information about saved words.
-
---
Ildus Kurbangaliev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
umGetTSVectorCopy will upgrade tsvector on the fly if it
> > has old format.
>
> I'm not familiar with pg_upgrade, but want to ask: should this
> workaround be part of pg_upgrade?
>
> Greetings,
> Torsten
I chose the way when the data remains the same, until the user dec
, File: "trigger.c", Line: 2428)
I'm not sure how it should be fixed, because as I see `oldtuple` will
be set only for AFTER ROW triggers by `wholerow` junk attribute.
Regards,
Ildus Kurbangaliev
test.sql
Description: application/sql
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hacker
tuple.
I think problem is that `rewriteTargetListUD` called only for parent
relation, so there is no `wholerow` attribute for foreign tables.
--
---
Ildus Kurbangaliev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@p
On Mon, 15 May 2017 17:43:52 +0530
Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
> <i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 May 2017 10:34:58 +0530
> > Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com&
On Wed, 17 May 2017 15:28:24 +0900
Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
> <i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 May 2017 21:36:11 +0900
> > Etsuro Fujita <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.c
On Tue, 16 May 2017 15:21:27 +0530
Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
> <i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 May 2017 17:43:52 +0530
> > Ashutosh Bapat <ashut
On Tue, 16 May 2017 21:36:11 +0900
Etsuro Fujita <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> On 2017/05/16 21:11, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
> > <i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> >> I agree. Maybe t
gt;
> Anyway I'll add this to the next commitfest.
>
> Best regards,
> Etsuro Fujita
>
> [1]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170514150525.0346ba72%40postgrespro.ru
Checked the latest patch. Looks good.
Shouldn't this patch be backported to 9.6 and 10beta? The bug
On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 23:08:14 +0200
Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 08/17/2017 12:23 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote:
> > In my benchmarks when database fits into buffers (so it's
> > measurement of the time required for the tsvectors
t. PFA a new version of the patch.
>
> Best regards,
> Etsuro Fujita
Checked, looks good to me. Changed status to 'Ready for Commiter'.
--
---
Ildus Kurbangaliev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
some working with bgworker it disconnects from mqs and the
worker becomes free for another backend. So the workers can act like a
cache, or keep some long connections with other services and so on.
--
---
Ildus Kurbangaliev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 17:05:58 -0400
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 9/12/17 10:55, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote:
> >> The patch also includes custom compression method for tsvector
> >> which is used in tests.
> >>
> >> [
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 23:02:34 +0800
Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2 November 2017 at 17:41, Ildus Kurbangaliev
> <i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> > In this patch compression methods is suitable for MAIN and EXTENDED
> > storag
60 matches
Mail list logo
