Re: [HACKERS] Testing the async-commit patch

2007-08-15 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 12:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 12:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: heapam.c lines 1843-1852 presume previous xmax can be hinted immediately, ditto lines 2167-2176, ditto lines 2716-2725. I think probably we should

Re: [HACKERS] Testing the async-commit patch

2007-08-14 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 16:27 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Let's say that this file looks just like a postgresql.conf file, except that any line beginning with '[identifier]' is a config set name for the lines that follow. So we might have: [asynch_commit] synchronous_commit = off

Re: [HACKERS] Testing the async-commit patch

2007-08-14 Thread Gregory Stark
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But to get to the point: the urgency of testing the patch more extensively has just moved up a full order of magnitude, The problem testing this patch is that the window for a committed transaction to not be synced is quite narrow, especially for the

Re: [HACKERS] Testing the async-commit patch

2007-08-14 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Simon Riggs wrote: On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 16:27 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Let's say that this file looks just like a postgresql.conf file, except that any line beginning with '[identifier]' is a config set name for the lines that follow. So we might have: [asynch_commit]

Re: [HACKERS] Testing the async-commit patch

2007-08-14 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simon Riggs wrote: Sounds fine, though I'd prefer this in XML to allow further extensibility in the future. YAML? That would seem to require making pg_regress depend on some XML library or other, which is a dependency I'd rather not add.

Re: [HACKERS] Testing the async-commit patch

2007-08-14 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simon Riggs wrote: Sounds fine, though I'd prefer this in XML to allow further extensibility in the future. YAML? That would seem to require making pg_regress depend on some XML library or other, which is a

Re: [HACKERS] Testing the async-commit patch

2007-08-14 Thread Josh Berkus
Tom, We're getting some additional test infrastructre at Sun; I'll throw this on the pile of stuff to test. However, the current tests we're doing are regression tests and benchmark runs. If there's some other kind of testing we need to do, I'll need specifics. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @

Re: [HACKERS] Testing the async-commit patch

2007-08-14 Thread Tom Lane
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The problem testing this patch is that the window for a committed transaction to not be synced is quite narrow, especially for the regression tests. For testing purposes I wonder if there are ways we can widen this window. Some ideas, some wackier than

Re: [HACKERS] Testing the async-commit patch

2007-08-14 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 12:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I think this is better done by code inspection, ie, look for places that assume HEAP_XMIN/XMAX_COMMITTED is or can be set. I made a pass over CVS HEAD and found some apparent trouble spots: heapam.c lines 1843-1852 presume previous xmax can

Re: [HACKERS] Testing the async-commit patch

2007-08-14 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 12:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: heapam.c lines 1843-1852 presume previous xmax can be hinted immediately, ditto lines 2167-2176, ditto lines 2716-2725. I think probably we should just remove those lines --- they are only trying to save

Re: [HACKERS] Testing the async-commit patch

2007-08-14 Thread Greg Smith
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 16:27 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: [asynch_commit] synchronous_commit = off [no_fsync] fsync = off This is the Windows INI file format. As such, it's easy to find code samples in almost any language that parse this format for you. For example, Python has a core

Re: [HACKERS] Testing the async-commit patch

2007-08-13 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: But to get to the point: the urgency of testing the patch more extensively has just moved up a full order of magnitude, IMHO anyway. I muttered something in the other thread about providing a buildfarm option to run the regression tests with synchronous_commit off. That would

Re: [HACKERS] Testing the async-commit patch

2007-08-13 Thread Gregory Stark
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But to get to the point: the urgency of testing the patch more extensively has just moved up a full order of magnitude, IMHO anyway. I muttered something in the other thread about providing a buildfarm option to run the regression tests with

Re: [HACKERS] Testing the async-commit patch

2007-08-13 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have some ideas about testing configuration items. Doing all our tests with the default config is not ideal, I think. Essentially we'd put up a server that would have sets of branch, list-of-config-lines. The client would connect to the server if

Re: [HACKERS] Testing the async-commit patch

2007-08-13 Thread Tom Lane
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I propose that we actually set synchronous_commit off by default for the next little while --- at least up to 8.3beta1, maybe until we approach the RC point. That will ensure that every buildfarm machine is exercising

Re: [HACKERS] Testing the async-commit patch

2007-08-13 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have some ideas about testing configuration items. Doing all our tests with the default config is not ideal, I think. Essentially we'd put up a server that would have sets of branch, list-of-config-lines. The client would connect