Le dimanche 15 juillet 2012 07:02:01, Stephen Frost a écrit :
Bruce,
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 09:17:22PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
So, can you explain which case you're specifically worried about?
OK. The basic problem is that I previously
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
While I was at it, it seemed like DefineIndex's parameter list had grown
well past any sane bound, so I refactored it to pass the IndexStmt
struct as-is rather than passing all the fields individually.
With or without that
Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I would like to sneak this fix into 9.2, though. Does anyone think
it's already too late to be touching these APIs for 9.2?
I'd like us to stick to the standard practice of not
Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
The topic was poor performance when truncating lots of small tables
repeatedly on test environments with fsync=off.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I would like to sneak this fix into 9.2, though. Does anyone think
it's already too late to be touching
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
A small sidetrack here. I've managed to set up the Solaris Studio
compiler on Linux and tried this out. It turns out these statement not
reached warnings have nothing to do with
2012/7/12 Etsuro Fujita fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp:
2012/6/26 Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp:
Harada-san,
I checked your patch, and had an impression that includes many
improvements from the previous revision that I looked at the last
commit fest.
However, I noticed several
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Hm. I seem to recall that at least some of these lines were themselves
put in to suppress compiler warnings.
You mean things like this?
-
- /* keep compiler happy */
-
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.comwrote:
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of vie jul 13 16:05:37 -0400 2012:
Why does the isolation check take such a long time? On some of my slower
buildfarm members I am thinking of disabling it because it
CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue supposes that it can use an entry of the
checkpointer request queue directly as a hash table key. This will work
reliably only if there are no pad bytes in the CheckpointerRequest
struct, which means in turn that neither RelFileNodeBackend nor
RelFileNode can
... btw, in the penny wise and pound foolish department, I observe that
smgrdounlink calls mdunlink separately for each possibly existing fork
of a relation to be dropped. That means we are queuing a separate fsync
queue entry for each fork, and could immediately save a factor of four
in
We are now at the end of the originally scheduled one-month window for
the June commitfest. While the numbers look fairly bad:
Needs Review: 17, Waiting on Author: 10, Ready for Committer: 3, Committed: 29,
Returned with Feedback: 12, Rejected: 5. Total: 76.
it's not quite a complete disaster,
At this point we could move the open items to the September fest and
call this one good, or we could keep trying to close things out.
Personally I'd like to do the former, because we really need to spend
some effort on closing out the various open issues for 9.2, and the
commitfest seems to
On 07/16/2012 02:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah, you have a point there. It's not real clear that switching fsync
from off to on is an operation that we can make any guarantees about,
short of executing something like the code recently added to initdb
to force-sync the entire PGDATA tree.
Which three patches didn't get any review?
Or to be more specific: I'm in favor of closing out everything which has
had some review. I think the three patches without any review should be
dealt with case-by-case.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via
On 16 July 2012 01:16, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
At this point we could move the open items to the September fest and
call this one good, or we could keep trying to close things out.
Personally I'd like to do the former, because we really need to spend
some effort on closing out the
Marko Kreen mark...@gmail.com writes:
Now, looking at the problem with some perspective, the solution
is obvious: when in single-row mode, the PQgetResult() must return
proper PGresult for that single row. And everything else follows that.
Such API is implemented in attached patch:
I'm
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
Which three patches didn't get any review?
Or to be more specific: I'm in favor of closing out everything which has
had some review. I think the three patches without any review should be
dealt with case-by-case.
Well, I might be wrong, but the ones
On 1 June 2012 01:02, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry it has taken me a year to get back to this patch. I have wanted
to use it, and to ask other people to run it and report their results,
several time recently, so I would like to get it into the core.
Who marked this patch as
Craig Ringer ring...@ringerc.id.au writes:
On 07/16/2012 02:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah, you have a point there. It's not real clear that switching fsync
from off to on is an operation that we can make any guarantees about,
short of executing something like the code recently added to initdb
On 07/16/2012 09:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
There's one way that doesn't have any housekeeping cost to Pg. It's
pretty bad manners if there's anybody other than Pg on the system though:
sync()
Yeah, I thought about that: if we could document that issuing a manual
sync after turning fsync on
Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 1 June 2012 01:02, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry it has taken me a year to get back to this patch. I have wanted
to use it, and to ask other people to run it and report their results,
several time recently, so I would like to get
22 matches
Mail list logo
