On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 18:18 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> 2. The typed tables stuff vs. pg_upgrade still needs work. I would be
>>> just as happy if Tom or Peter wanted to fix this
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> 1. All of the SSI patches have been dealt with.
>
> I'll add the non-serializable UPDATE performance issue. Dan has
> been benchmarking to try to find a worst case; I don't want to speak
> for him too much, but as
Robert Haas wrote:
> 1. All of the SSI patches have been dealt with.
I'll add the non-serializable UPDATE performance issue. Dan has
been benchmarking to try to find a worst case; I don't want to speak
for him too much, but as he was headed off to lecture a class he
sent me results so far, an
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 18:18 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> 2. The typed tables stuff vs. pg_upgrade still needs work. I would be
>> just as happy if Tom or Peter wanted to fix this, mostly for fear of
>> getting flak over the details of th
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 18:18 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> 2. The typed tables stuff vs. pg_upgrade still needs work. I would be
> just as happy if Tom or Peter wanted to fix this, mostly for fear of
> getting flak over the details of the fixes, but if not I will do it.
Noah Misch is hot on the trai
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Since we're targeting code freeze for beta1 for approximately now + 1
>> week, it's probably about time to take stock of where we are.
>
>> 3. The collation issues that have been discussed on-list have, I
>> *think*, mostly
Robert Haas writes:
> Since we're targeting code freeze for beta1 for approximately now + 1
> week, it's probably about time to take stock of where we are.
> 3. The collation issues that have been discussed on-list have, I
> *think*, mostly been dealt with. But maybe there are some broken
> thin
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> A quick review of the open items list suggests that we have three main
> areas that need attention before we can declare ourselves ready for
> beta.
>
> In no particular order:
>
> 1. There are a bunch of small, outstanding SSI patches.
> 2. Bug
Robert Haas wrote:
> I think I've cleared out most of the small stuff.
Thanks!
> The two SSI related issues still on the open items list are:
>
> * SSI: failure to clean up some SLRU-summarized locks
This one is very important. Not only could it lead to unnecessary
false positive seriali
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
>> On 06.04.2011 18:02, Tom Lane wrote:
I agree. But again, that's not really what I'm focusing on - the
collations stuff, the typed tables patch, and SSI all need serious
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> The real fix for this problem is probably to have the ability to
>> actually return memory to the shared pool, rather than having
>> everyone grab as they need it until there's no more and never give
>> back. But that's
Robert Haas wrote:
> The real fix for this problem is probably to have the ability to
> actually return memory to the shared pool, rather than having
> everyone grab as they need it until there's no more and never give
> back. But that's not going to happen in 9.1, so the question is
> whether t
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Dan Ports wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 12:25:26PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> By the way, the problem with SSI potentially running out of shared
>> memory is rather parallel to how heavyweight locks can run out of
>> shared memory. The SLRU prevents the num
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 12:25:26PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> By the way, the problem with SSI potentially running out of shared
> memory is rather parallel to how heavyweight locks can run out of
> shared memory. The SLRU prevents the number of transactions from
> being limited in that way, a
Tom Lane wrote:
> If you get "out of shared memory" at all due to SSI, I'd say that
> that's the problem, not exactly when it happens. I thought that
> the patch included provisions for falling back to coarser-grained
> locks whenever it was short of resources.
When one of the tests was getti
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 06.04.2011 17:46, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I confess to not having been reading the discussions about SSI very
>> much, but ... do we actually care whether there's a free-for-all?
>> What's the downside to letting the remaining shmem get claimed by
>> whichever table uses
On 6 April 2011 17:57, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 06.04.2011 17:46, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> "Kevin Grittner" writes:
>>>
>>> Robert Haas wrote:
... The one I'm most
worried about is "SSI: three different HTABs contend for shared
memory in a free-for-all" - because there's n
On 06.04.2011 17:46, Tom Lane wrote:
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
Robert Haas wrote:
... The one I'm most
worried about is "SSI: three different HTABs contend for shared
memory in a free-for-all" - because there's no patch for that yet,
and I am wary of breaking something mucking around with it.
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> ... The one I'm most
>> worried about is "SSI: three different HTABs contend for shared
>> memory in a free-for-all" - because there's no patch for that yet,
>> and I am wary of breaking something mucking around with it.
> I haven't seen any obje
Robert Haas wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> I can look at the SSI patches, but not until next week, I'm
>> afraid. Robert, would you like to pick that up before then? Kevin
>> & Dan have done all the heavy lifting, but it's nevertheless
>> pretty complicated code to review.
>
> I'll try,
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 06.04.2011 18:02, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I agree. But again, that's not really what I'm focusing on - the
>>> collations stuff, the typed tables patch, and SSI all need serious
>>> looking at, and I'm not sure who is going to pick all t
On 06.04.2011 18:02, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
I agree. But again, that's not really what I'm focusing on - the
collations stuff, the typed tables patch, and SSI all need serious
looking at, and I'm not sure who is going to pick all that up.
Well, I'll take responsibility for colla
Robert Haas writes:
> I agree. But again, that's not really what I'm focusing on - the
> collations stuff, the typed tables patch, and SSI all need serious
> looking at, and I'm not sure who is going to pick all that up.
Well, I'll take responsibility for collations. If I get done with that
bef
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> ... Most urgently, I believe we need a bit more committer bandwidth. I
>> believe that I could tackle either the SSI patches or the pg_upgrade &
>> typed tables issue, or I could try to make a dent in the collation
>> stuff
Robert Haas writes:
> ... Most urgently, I believe we need a bit more committer bandwidth. I
> believe that I could tackle either the SSI patches or the pg_upgrade &
> typed tables issue, or I could try to make a dent in the collation
> stuff, but I don't think I can cover two of those areas and
A quick review of the open items list suggests that we have three main
areas that need attention before we can declare ourselves ready for
beta.
In no particular order:
1. There are a bunch of small, outstanding SSI patches.
2. Bugs - plural - related to pg_upgrade & typed tables.
3. Assorted col
Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_8.5_Open_Items currently
lists no open items,
um ... are we looking at the same page? I see 8 open items there,
not counting the links to the separate HS and SR
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_8.5_Open_Items currently
>> lists no open items,
>
> um ... are we looking at the same page? I see 8 open items there,
> not counting the links to the separate HS and SR pages.
I
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_8.5_Open_Items currently
> > lists no open items,
>
> um ... are we looking at the same page? I see 8 open items there,
> not counting the links to the separate HS and SR pages.
>
> > My suspicion is that the r
Robert Haas writes:
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_8.5_Open_Items currently
> lists no open items,
um ... are we looking at the same page? I see 8 open items there,
not counting the links to the separate HS and SR pages.
> My suspicion is that the real situation is more complicate
Now that PostgreSQL 9.0 alpha4 is bundled (though apparently not quite
out the door yet), it seems like a good time to think about what we'll
need to do to get to beta. Any thoughts?
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_8.5_Open_Items currently
lists no open items, and the Hot Standby TODO
31 matches
Mail list logo
