On 2017-10-02 23:24:30,"Alexander Korotkov" <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 8:27 PM, chenhj <chjis...@163.com> wrote:
Now, this patch looks good for me. It applies cleanly, builds cleanly, passes
regression tests, new functionality is cover
On 2017-10-01 04:09:19,"Alexander Korotkov" <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 8:18 PM, chenhj <chjis...@163.com> wrote:
On 2017-09-30 02:17:54,"Alexander Korotkov" <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
Great. Now code of this patch
On 2017-09-30 02:17:54,"Alexander Korotkov" wrote:
Great. Now code of this patch looks good for me.
However, we forgot about documentation.
The result is equivalent to replacing the target data directory with the
source one. Only changed blocks from
On 2017-09-30 00:53:31,"chenhj" <chjis...@163.com> wrote:
On 2017-09-29 19:29:40,"Alexander Korotkov" <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:07 AM, chenhj <chjis...@163.com> wrote:
OK. That makes sense. Thank you for the
On 2017-09-29 19:29:40,"Alexander Korotkov" <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:07 AM, chenhj <chjis...@163.com> wrote:
OK. That makes sense. Thank you for the explanation.
I still have some minor comments.
/*
+* Save the WAL filen
On 2017-09-29 05:31:51, "Alexander Korotkov" <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:52 PM, chenhj <chjis...@163.com> wrote:
On 2017-09-29 00:43:18,"Alexander Korotkov" <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:
On 2017-09-29 00:43:18,"Alexander Korotkov" <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:44 PM, chenhj <chjis...@163.com> wrote:
On 2017-09-28 01:29:29,"Alexander Korotkov" <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
It appears that your patch co
On 2017-09-28 01:29:29,"Alexander Korotkov" wrote:
It appears that your patch conflicts with fc49e24f. Please, rebase it.
--
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
Yes, i had rebased it, Please
On 2017-09-23 01:59:0, "Alexander Korotkov" <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:16 PM, chenhj <chjis...@163.com> wrote:
This is the new pacth with TAP test and use Macro XLOGDIR.
Good. I took a quick look over the patch.
Why do you need master_
Hi
This is the new pacth with TAP test and use Macro XLOGDIR.
And i had add this patch to the commitfest,
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/15/1302/
--
Best Regards,
Chen Huajun
pg_rewind_wal_copy_reduce_v2.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
At 2017-09-17 08:33:33, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 3:19 AM, Alexander Korotkov
><a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 5:56 PM, chenhj <chjis...@163.com> wro
Hi all,
Currently, pg_rewind copies all WAL files from the source server, whether or
not they are needed.
In some circumstances, will bring a lot of unnecessary network and disk IO
consumption, and also increase the execution time of pg_rewind.
Such as when wal_keep_segments or max_wal_size is
2015-07-03 16:49:44,David Rowley david.row...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I'm wondering what the original test setup was. I'm assuming psql and postgres
both running on separate windows machines?
I've tested the patch just connecting to a database running on localhost and
I'm not getting much of a
At 2015-04-10 20:00:35, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting. I think that for the time being you should add it to the
next commit fest to target an integration in 9.6 as these days we are
busy wrapping up the last commit fest of 9.5:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/5/
table and data
createdb db1000
psql -q -v total=1000 -v pnum=1000 -f createsql.sql |psql db1000
psql -c insert into maintb values(1,'abcde12345') db1000
2)update the parent table with one connection, 955MB memory has been used.
[chenhj@node2 part]$ pgbench -c 1 -n -T 10 -r -f update.sql db1000
Hi
In my test(PG9.3.4), i found when update a parent table which has a large
number of child tables, the execute plan will consume lots of memory. And
possibly cause OOM.
For example:
create table maintb(id int,name char(10));
create table childtb_1 (CHECK ( id BETWEEN 1 AND 200))
16 matches
Mail list logo