On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Agreed. I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill here. As
long as the locks that are
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
That opens up for lock escalation and deadlocks, doesn't it? You are
probably thinking that it's okay to ignore those but I don't necessarily
agree with that.
Agreed. I think we're making a mountain out of a
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
That opens up for lock escalation and deadlocks, doesn't it? You are
probably thinking that it's okay to ignore those but I don't
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Agreed. I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill here. As
long as the locks that are actually used are monotonic, just use and
stick a comment in there explaining that
On 2015-08-03 14:15:27 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On August 1, 2015 2:17:24 PM GMT+02:00, Michael Paquier wrote:
For instance, if you told me to choose between ShareLock and
ShareUpdateExclusiveLock I wouldn't know which one is
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-08-03 14:15:27 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On August 1, 2015 2:17:24 PM GMT+02:00, Michael Paquier wrote:
For instance, if you told me to choose between
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-08-03 14:15:27 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
As long as this only applies on master, this may be fine... We could
basically pass a LOCKMASK to the multiple layers of tablecmds.c
Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-08-03 14:15:27 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
As long as this only applies on master, this may be fine... We could
basically pass a LOCKMASK to the multiple layers of tablecmds.c
instead of LOCKMODE to track all the locks that need to be taken, and
all the
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On August 1, 2015 2:17:24 PM GMT+02:00, Michael Paquier wrote:
For instance, if you told me to choose between ShareLock and
ShareUpdateExclusiveLock I
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you sure we need to do all this changes just to check the highest
locklevel based on the reloptions?
Well, by looking at the code that's what it looks as. That's a large
change not that straight-forward.
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
In this patch I didn't change all lockmode comparison places previous
pointed by you, but I can change it maybe adding other method called
LockModeIsValid(lockmode) to do the
On August 1, 2015 2:17:24 PM GMT+02:00, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
In this patch I didn't change all lockmode comparison places
previous
pointed by you, but I
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 31 July 2015 at 02:46, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Added. I really don't know if my isolation tests are completely correct,
is
my first time writing this kind of tests.
This patch size has
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
We usually don't compare lock values that way, i.e. there's not
guaranteed to be a strict monotonicity between lock levels. I don't
really agree with that policy, but it's nonetheless there.
And how is the better way to compare
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On further notice, I would recommend not to use the same string name
for the session and the query identifiers. And I think that inserting
only
On 31 July 2015 at 02:46, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Added. I really don't know if my isolation tests are completely correct,
is
my first time writing this kind of tests.
This patch size has increased from 16k to 157k because of the output
of the isolation tests you
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
We usually don't compare lock values that way, i.e. there's not
guaranteed to be a strict monotonicity between lock levels. I don't
really
Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
In this patch I didn't change all lockmode comparison places previous
pointed by you, but I can change it maybe adding other method called
LockModeIsValid(lockmode) to do the comparison lockmode = NoLock
lockmode MAX_LOCKMODES used in many places.
I don't
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
@@ -57,7 +57,8 @@ static relopt_bool boolRelOpts[] =
If we go through this list, I'd rather make informed decisions about
each reloption. Otherwise we're going to get patches for each of them
separately over the next
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
@@ -57,7 +57,8 @@ static relopt_bool boolRelOpts[] =
If we go through this list, I'd rather make informed decisions about
each reloption. Otherwise we're going to get patches for each of them
separately over the next
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
This patch size has increased from 16k to 157k because of the output
of the isolation tests you just added. This is definitely too large
and actually the test coverage is rather limited. Hence I think that
they
@@ -57,7 +57,8 @@ static relopt_bool boolRelOpts[] =
If we go through this list, I'd rather make informed decisions about
each reloption. Otherwise we're going to get patches for each of them
separately over the next versions.
@@ -73,7 +75,8 @@ static relopt_bool boolRelOpts[] =
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:03 PM,
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Looks functionally complete
Need a test to show that ALTER TABLE works on views, as discussed on this
thread. And confirmation that
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: not tested
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: not tested
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
Looks functionally complete
Need a test to show that ALTER TABLE works on
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
Ok guys. The attached patch refactor the reloptions adding a new field
lockmode in relopt_gen struct and a new method to determine the
required lock level from an option list.
Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
Ok guys. The attached patch refactor the reloptions adding a new field
lockmode in relopt_gen struct and a new method to determine the
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
Ok guys. The attached patch refactor the reloptions
Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
Ok guys. The attached patch refactor the reloptions adding a new field
lockmode in relopt_gen struct and a new method to determine the
required lock level from an option list.
We need determine the appropriate lock level for each reloption:
I don't think
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 01:17:03PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
Attached a very WIP patch to reduce lock level when setting autovacuum
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com
wrote:
On 3/27/15 2:23 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
Hi all,
I'm tweaking some autovacuum settings in a table with high
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 01:17:03PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
Attached a very WIP patch to reduce lock level when setting autovacuum
reloptions in ALTER TABLE .. SET ( .. ) statement.
I think the first
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
Attached a very WIP patch to reduce lock level when setting autovacuum
reloptions in ALTER TABLE .. SET ( .. ) statement.
I think the first thing we need to here is analyze all of the options
and determine
On 3/27/15 2:23 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
Hi all,
I'm tweaking some autovacuum settings in a table with high write usage
but with ALTER TABLE .. SET ( .. ) this task was impossible, so I did a
catalog update (pg_class) to change reloptions.
Maybe it's a stupid doubt, but why we need
36 matches
Mail list logo
