Re: [HACKERS] Is Patch Ok for deferred trigger disk queue?

2003-07-28 Thread Stuart
Bruce Momjian wrote: I assume this will not be completed for 7.4. I will keep the emails for 7.5. One idea I had was to use the existing sort_mem parameter to control when to force the deferred trigger queue to disk --- it doesn't have anything to do with sorting, but it does have the same

Re: [HACKERS] Is Patch Ok for deferred trigger disk queue?

2003-07-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
I assume this will not be completed for 7.4. I will keep the emails for 7.5. One idea I had was to use the existing sort_mem parameter to control when to force the deferred trigger queue to disk --- it doesn't have anything to do with sorting, but it does have the same purpose, to force thing

Re: [HACKERS] Is Patch Ok for deferred trigger disk queue?

2003-07-19 Thread Bruce Momjian
Stuart, were are on this patch? Seems we need GUC additions, though I can do that for you, and changes to write the head to disk. Was that completed? --- Stuart wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [HACKERS] Is Patch Ok for deferred trigger disk queue?

2003-07-01 Thread Stuart
Tom Lane wrote: Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As a side question, it looks to me that the code stores the first trigger records in memory and then after some point starts storing all new records on disk. Is this correct? I'd wonder if that's really what you want in general, since I'd

Re: [HACKERS] Is Patch Ok for deferred trigger disk queue?

2003-07-01 Thread Stephan Szabo
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Stuart wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As a side question, it looks to me that the code stores the first trigger records in memory and then after some point starts storing all new records on disk. Is this correct? I'd wonder if that's

Re: [HACKERS] Is Patch Ok for deferred trigger disk queue?

2003-07-01 Thread Jan Wieck
Stuart wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As a side question, it looks to me that the code stores the first trigger records in memory and then after some point starts storing all new records on disk. Is this correct? I'd wonder if that's really what you want in

Re: [HACKERS] Is Patch Ok for deferred trigger disk queue?

2003-06-30 Thread Stephan Szabo
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, deststar wrote: Hi, I noticed the patch: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-06/msg00366.php isn't in the patch queue. Is the patch OK? I think it was just that Bruce hasn't gotten to it. If not please say what is wrong with it. I just checked out a new

Re: [HACKERS] Is Patch Ok for deferred trigger disk queue?

2003-06-30 Thread Stephan Szabo
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Stephan Szabo wrote: On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, deststar wrote: Hi, I noticed the patch: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-06/msg00366.php isn't in the patch queue. Is the patch OK? I think it was just that Bruce hasn't gotten to it. If not please

Re: [HACKERS] Is Patch Ok for deferred trigger disk queue?

2003-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As a side question, it looks to me that the code stores the first trigger records in memory and then after some point starts storing all new records on disk. Is this correct? I'd wonder if that's really what you want in general, since I'd think that