On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:26:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:17:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I have no objection to doing that, so long as you are actually doing it
correctly. This example shows that each jail must have its own
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:17:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:08:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
If this is the story, then FBSD have broken their system and must revert
their change. They do not have kernel behavior that totally
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:08:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I venture that FBSD 6 has decided to return ESRCH (no such process)
where FBSD 4 returned some other error that acknowledged that the
process did exist (EPERM would be a reasonable guess).
If this is the story, then FBSD have broken
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 12:30:58AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:17:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:08:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
If this is the story
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 06:51:45PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Robert Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Stephen Frost wrote:
This is certainly a problem with FBSD jails... Not only the
inconsistancy, but what happens if someone manages to get access to the
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 03:42:51PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
That's a fair question, but in the context of the code I believe we are
behaving reasonably. The reason this code exists is to provide some
insurance against leaking semaphores when a
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 07:43:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Why does postgresql change its process title so frequently and how can
this be disabled? Profiling suggests it's a fairly serious
performance bottleneck.
Let's see the evidence
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 09:58:33PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 07:43:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Let's see the evidence.
The calls to setproctitle() (it looks like 4 setproctitle syscalls per
DB query) are causing contention
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 10:07:13PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 09:58:33PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 07:43:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Let's see the evidence.
The calls to setproctitle() (it looks
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:08:22AM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 12:24:36AM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 10:07:13PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 09:58:33PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 12:29:14PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Can you provide the actual commands you used to setup and run the test?
I actually forget all the steps I needed to do to get super-smack
working with postgresql since it required a lot of trial and error for
a database
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 12:29:14PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Unless supersmack has improved substantially, you're unlikely to find
much interest. Last I heard it was a pretty brain-dead benchmark. DBT2/3
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/osdldbt) is much more realistic (based
on TPC-C and
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 03:55:38PM -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
On Jun 12, 2006, at 10:38 AM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
FYI, the biggest source of contention is via semop() - it might be
possible to optimize that some more in FreeBSD, I don't know.
Yeah, I've seen PostgreSQL on FreeBSD fall over
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 11:34:52PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 14:18 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 12:29:14PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Unless supersmack has improved substantially, you're unlikely to find
much interest. Last I heard
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 07:56:30AM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
I did have dbt2 pretty close to functional on FreeBSD a year ago but
it's probably gone back into linuxisms since then.
:(
I won't have the chance to work on this further for another 2 months,
but if you have patches I
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 10:41:04PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
If so, then your task is the following:
Make SYSV semaphores less dumb about process wakeups. Currently
whenever the semaphore state changes, all processes sleeping on the
semaphore are woken, even if we
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 10:23:42AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Mark Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
If so, then your task is the following:
Make SYSV semaphores less dumb about process wakeups. Currently
whenever the semaphore state changes, all processes sleeping
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 03:52:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 02:46:56PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Oh, I'm sure the BSD kernel acts as you describe. But Mark's point is
that Postgres never has more than one process waiting on any
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 08:23:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I think the high number of setproctitle() calls are more problematic
to us at the moment, Kris can comment on that.
As of PG 8.2 it is possible to turn those off. I don't think there's a
lot of enthusiasm for turning them off by
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 06:26:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 05:36:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Anyway I'd be interested to know what the test case is, and which PG
version you were testing.
I used 8.2 (and some older version
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 12:50:06PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
I think the high number of setproctitle() calls are more problematic
to us at the moment, Kris can comment on that.
As of PG 8.2 it is possible to turn those off. I don't think there's a
lot of enthusiasm
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:03:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think the high number of setproctitle() calls are more problematic
to us at the moment, Kris can comment on that.
Since we've basically had it handed to us that calling setproctitle
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 02:46:56PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Make SYSV semaphores less dumb about process wakeups. Currently
whenever the semaphore state changes, all processes sleeping on the
semaphore are woken, even if we only have released enough
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 05:36:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have not studied the exact code path, but there are indeed multiple
wakeups happening from the semaphore code (as many as the number of
active postgresql processes). It is easy to instrument
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 12:57:32PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:03:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, the thing is, we've pretty much had it handed to us that
current-command indicators that aren't up
25 matches
Mail list logo
