On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Robert Haas
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
I have checked that other place in code also check handle to
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
For the create case, I'm wondering if we should put the block that
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
I am just not sure whether it is okay to rearrange the code and call
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
I have checked that other place in code also check handle to
decide if API has failed. Refer function PGSharedMemoryIsInUse().
So I think fix
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
I am just not sure whether it is okay to rearrange the code and call
GetLastError() only if returned handle is Invalid (NULL) or try to look
for
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently not. However, I'm fairly sure this is a step toward
addressing the complaints previously raised, even if there may be some
details people still want changed, so I've gone ahead and committed
it.
Few
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
Few Observations:
1. One new warning has been introduced in code.
1src\backend\port\win32_shmem.c(295): warning C4013:
'dsm_set_control_handle' undefined; assuming extern returning int
Attached patch fixes this
On 2014-04-09 11:50:33 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
One question:
1. I have seen that initdb still creates pg_dynshmem, is it required
after your latest changes?
It's only used now if dynamic_shared_memory_type = mmap. I know
Andres was never a huge fan of the mmap implementation, so we
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Yeah, abandoning the state file is looking attractive.
Here's a draft patch getting rid of the state file. This should
address concerns raised by
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Yeah, abandoning the state file is looking attractive.
Here's a draft patch getting rid of the state file. This should
address concerns raised by Heikki and Fujii Masao and echoed by Tom
that dynamic shared memory behaves
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
What do people prefer?
I recommend performing cleanup on the control segment named in PGShmemHeader
just before shmdt() in PGSharedMemoryCreate(). No new ERROR or WARNING sites
are necessary. Have dsm_postmaster_startup()
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:32:09AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
What do people prefer?
I recommend performing cleanup on the control segment named in PGShmemHeader
just before shmdt() in PGSharedMemoryCreate(). No new
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:21:08PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The larger point is that such a shutdown process has never in the history
of Postgres been successful at removing shared-memory (or semaphore)
resources. I do
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 07:50:20PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Let's not add more cases like that, if we can avoid it.
Only if we can avoid it for a modicum of effort and feature
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:12:48PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 11/20/2013 09:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
* As discussed in the Something fishy happening on frogmouth thread, I
don't like the fact that
On 12/10/2013 07:27 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:12:48PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 11/20/2013 09:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com
wrote:
* As discussed in the Something fishy happening on
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 07:50:20PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 12/10/2013 07:27 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:12:48PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
* As discussed in the Something
On 2013-12-10 18:12:53 -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 07:50:20PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 12/10/2013 07:27 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:12:48PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Let's not add more cases like that, if we can avoid it.
Only
Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 07:50:20PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Let's not add more cases like that, if we can avoid it.
Only if we can avoid it for a modicum of effort and feature compromise.
You're asking for PostgreSQL to reshape its use of
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
That's a very interesting idea. I've been thinking that we needed to
preserve the property that new workers could attach to the shared
memory segment at any time, but that might not be necessary in all
case. We
On 11/20/2013 09:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
How many allocations? What size will they have have typically, minimum and
maximum?
The facility is intended to be general, so the answer could vary
widely by
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Hmm. Those two use cases are quite different. For message-passing, you want
a lot of small queues, but for parallel sort, you want one huge allocation.
I wonder if we shouldn't even try a one-size-fits-all
On 12/05/2013 09:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
One idea is to create the shared memory object with shm_open, and wait until
all the worker processes that need it have attached to it. Then,
shm_unlink() it, before
On 20/11/13 19:58, Robert Haas wrote:
Parallel sort, and then parallel other stuff. Eventually general
parallel query.
I have recently updated https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Parallel_Sort
and you may find that interesting/helpful as a statement of intent.
I've been playing with an internal
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Jeremy Harris j...@wizmail.org wrote:
Its performance shines on partially- or reverse-sorted input.
Search the archives for the work I did on timsort support a while
back. A patch was posted, that had some impressive results provided
you just considered the
I'm trying to catch up on all of this dynamic shared memory stuff. A
bunch of random questions and complaints:
What kind of usage are we trying to cater with the dynamic shared
memory? How many allocations? What size will they have have typically,
minimum and maximum? I looked at the message
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
I'm trying to catch up on all of this dynamic shared memory stuff. A bunch
of random questions and complaints:
What kind of usage are we trying to cater with the dynamic shared memory?
Parallel sort, and then
28 matches
Mail list logo
