Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-09-25 Thread Tsunakawa, Takayuki
> From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Munro > Another database vendor recommends granting SeLockMemoryPrivilege so that > it can use large pages on Windows when using several GB of buffer pool. > I wonder if that might help

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-08-24 Thread Thomas Munro
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: Peter Geoghegan [mailto:p...@heroku.com] >> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >> [Windows] >> >> #clients onoff >> >> 12 29793 38169 >> >> 24

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-08-24 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki < tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > From: Peter Geoghegan [mailto:p...@heroku.com] > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >> [Windows] > > >> #clients onoff > > >> 12 29793 38169 > > >>

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-08-23 Thread Tsunakawa, Takayuki
From: Peter Geoghegan [mailto:p...@heroku.com] > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> [Windows] > >> #clients onoff > >> 12 29793 38169 > >> 24 31587 87237 > >> 48 32588 83335 > >> 96 34261 67668 > > > > This ranges from a 28% to a

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-08-23 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 01:58:02PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> [Windows] > >> #clients onoff > >> 12 29793 38169 > >> 24 31587 87237 > >> 48 32588 83335 > >> 96 34261 67668 > > > > This ranges

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-08-23 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> [Windows] >> #clients onoff >> 12 29793 38169 >> 24 31587 87237 >> 48 32588 83335 >> 96 34261 67668 > > This ranges from a 28% to a 97% speed improvement on Windows! Those are > not typos! This is

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-08-23 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:53:25AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki < > tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > > Yeah, I think I agree.  It would be bad to disable it by default on >

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-08-17 Thread Tsunakawa, Takayuki
From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:mag...@hagander.net] Applied and backpatched to 9.6. Thank you very much. I didn’t expect 9.6 to be patched, so I’m very happy. Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-08-17 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:53 AM, Magnus Hagander > wrote: > >> What's our take on backpatching such changes? Should this be 9.6 only, > or > >> back

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-08-16 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:53 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> What's our take on backpatching such changes? Should this be 9.6 only, or >> back further? > I would have thought this was a master-only change, although > back-patching

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-08-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:53 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > What's our take on backpatching such changes? Should this be 9.6 only, or > back further? I would have thought this was a master-only change, although back-patching it to 9.6 would be OK if it gets done RSN. I don't

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-08-16 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki < tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > > Yeah, I think I agree. It would be bad to disable it by default on Unix, > > because ps(1) is a very standard tool there, but the same argument >

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-08-07 Thread Tsunakawa, Takayuki
From: David Rowley [mailto:david.row...@2ndquadrant.com] > But perhaps it's better written like: > > + This value defaults to "off" on Windows platforms due to the > platform's significant overhead for updating the process title. Thank you, I copied this. But I changed "off" to off because

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-08-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki > wrote: >>> From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] >>> Yeah, I think I agree. It would be bad to disable it by default on Unix, >>>

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-08-05 Thread Jeff Janes
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: >> From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] >> Yeah, I think I agree. It would be bad to disable it by default on Unix, >> because ps(1) is a very standard tool there, but the same argument doesn't >>

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-08-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 01:12:39PM +0200, David Rowley wrote: > On 5 August 2016 at 12:25, Tsunakawa, Takayuki > wrote: > > It seems that we could reach a consensus. The patch is attached. I'll add > > this to the next CommitFest. > > > + The default

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-08-05 Thread David Rowley
On 5 August 2016 at 12:25, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > It seems that we could reach a consensus. The patch is attached. I'll add > this to the next CommitFest. + The default is off on Windows + because the overhead is significant, and on on

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-08-05 Thread Tsunakawa, Takayuki
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > Yeah, I think I agree. It would be bad to disable it by default on Unix, > because ps(1) is a very standard tool there, but the same argument doesn't > hold for Windows. It seems that we could reach a consensus. The patch is attached. I'll add

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-08-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 3:52 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-08-04 16:48:11 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Here is a different proposal: documenting instead that disabling that >> parameter on Windows can improve performance, at the cost of losing >> information verbosity

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-08-04 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-08-04 16:48:11 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Here is a different proposal: documenting instead that disabling that >> parameter on Windows can improve performance, at the cost of losing >> information verbosity for processes. > The benefit

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-08-04 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-08-04 16:48:11 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Here is a different proposal: documenting instead that disabling that > parameter on Windows can improve performance, at the cost of losing > information verbosity for processes. The benefit on windows seems pretty marginal, given the way it

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-08-04 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > 1. The performance gain is huge. > 2. It's almost useless because we can only see the postgres command line with > Process Explorer, which the user must download from Microsoft and install. > 3. I don't

[HACKERS] [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

2016-08-04 Thread Tsunakawa, Takayuki
Hello, I'd like to propose changing the default value of update_process_title to off, at least on Windows. I'll submit a patch if we see no big problem. PROBLEM Our customer is trying to certify PostgreSQL with their packaged software product.