Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I am ready now to backpatch this to 9.4 and 9.5; here are the patches.
> They are pretty similar, but some adjustments were needed due to XLog
> format changes in 9.5. (I kept most of Simon's original commit
> message.)
Finally done.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp
I am ready now to backpatch this to 9.4 and 9.5; here are the patches.
They are pretty similar, but some adjustments were needed due to XLog
format changes in 9.5. (I kept most of Simon's original commit
message.)
This patch has survived in master for a long time, and in released 9.6
for a couple
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> >> This seems like a might subtle thing to backpatch. If we really want to
> >> >> go there, ISTM that the relevant code should stew in a
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> This seems like a might subtle thing to backpatch. If we really want to
>> >> go there, ISTM that the relevant code should stew in an unreleased
>> >> branch for a
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:00 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> This seems like a might subtle thing to backpatch. If we really want to
>> >> go there, ISTM that the relevant code should stew in an unreleased
>> >> branch for a
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> This seems like a might subtle thing to backpatch. If we really want to
> >> go there, ISTM that the relevant code should stew in an unreleased
> >> branch for a while, before being backpatched.
> >
> > I'm definitely -1 on
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This seems like a might subtle thing to backpatch. If we really want to
>> go there, ISTM that the relevant code should stew in an unreleased
>> branch for a while, before being backpatched.
>
> I'm definitely -1 on back-patching such a thing. P
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2016-01-03 15:40:01 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> I'm happy with this being a simple patch now, not least because I would
>> like to backpatch this to 9.4 where catalog scans became MVCC.
>>
>> A backpatch is warranted because it is a severe performance issue with
>> rep
On 2016-01-03 15:40:01 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I'm happy with this being a simple patch now, not least because I would
> like to backpatch this to 9.4 where catalog scans became MVCC.
>
> A backpatch is warranted because it is a severe performance issue with
> replication and we can fix that b
On 21 December 2015 at 21:36, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > I think the new comment that talks about Toast Index should explain
> > *why* we can skip the pinning in all cases except that one, instead of
> > just saying we can do it.
>
> I've not looked at that code in a long while
On 21 December 2015 at 21:28, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > During VACUUM of btrees, we need to pin all pages, even those where
> tuples
> > are not removed, which I am calling here the "pin scan". This is
> especially
> > a problem during redo, where removing one tuple from a 10
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> I think the new comment that talks about Toast Index should explain
> *why* we can skip the pinning in all cases except that one, instead of
> just saying we can do it.
I've not looked at that code in a long while, but my recollection is
that it's designed that way to pro
Simon Riggs wrote:
> During VACUUM of btrees, we need to pin all pages, even those where tuples
> are not removed, which I am calling here the "pin scan". This is especially
> a problem during redo, where removing one tuple from a 100GB btree can take
> a minute or more. That causes replication lag
During VACUUM of btrees, we need to pin all pages, even those where tuples
are not removed, which I am calling here the "pin scan". This is especially
a problem during redo, where removing one tuple from a 100GB btree can take
a minute or more. That causes replication lags. Bad Thing.
Previously,
14 matches
Mail list logo