On 01/18/2013 11:50 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
Any scenario that involves non-trivial amount of investigation or
development should result in us pulling the patch for rework and
resubmission in later 'festit's closing
On 12/14/2012 09:57 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I need to validate the vacuum results. It's possible that this is
solvable by tweaking xmin check inside vacuum. Assuming that's fixed,
the question stands: do the results justify the change? I'd argue
'maybe'
We can try with change (assuming
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 12/14/2012 09:57 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I need to validate the vacuum results. It's possible that this is
solvable by tweaking xmin check inside vacuum. Assuming that's fixed,
the question stands: do the results
On 18-Jan-2013, at 17:04, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 12/14/2012 09:57 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I need to validate the vacuum results. It's possible that this is
solvable by tweaking xmin check inside vacuum. Assuming that's fixed,
the question stands: do the results
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
Sorry for the delay in updating the hackers list with the current status.
I recently did some profiling using perf on PostgreSQL 9.2 with and without
our patch.
I noticed that maximum time is being spent
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
Any scenario that involves non-trivial amount of investigation or
development should result in us pulling the patch for rework and
resubmission in later 'festit's closing time as they say :-).
Amen.
--
Robert Haas
On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:02 PM Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Hari Babu haribabu.ko...@huawei.com
wrote:
Please find the review of the patch.
Thanks for detailed review!
Basic stuff:
- Patch applies with offsets.
- Compiles cleanly
On Thu, Dec 7, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Hari babu
haribabu(dot)kommi(at)Huawei(dot)com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for that -- that's fairly comprehensive I'd say. I'm quite
interested in that benchmarking framework as well. Do you need
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Hari Babu haribabu.ko...@huawei.comwrote:
On Thu, Dec 7, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Hari babu
haribabu(dot)kommi(at)Huawei(dot)com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks for that -- that's fairly comprehensive
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Hari Babu haribabu.ko...@huawei.com wrote:
Please find the review of the patch.
Thanks for detailed review!
Basic stuff:
- Patch applies with offsets.
- Compiles cleanly with no warnings
- Regression Test pass.
Code Review:
-
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for that -- that's fairly comprehensive I'd say. I'm quite
interested in that benchmarking framework as well. Do you need help
setting up the scripts?
Presently I am testing with pgbench custom query option taking
On Thursday, November 22, 2012 3:00 AM Greg Smith wrote:
On 11/16/12 9:03 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
Atri ran some quick n dirty tests to see if there
were any regressions. He benched a large scan followed by vacuum. So
far, results are inconclusive so better testing methodologies will
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 22, 2012 3:00 AM Greg Smith wrote:
On 11/16/12 9:03 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
Atri ran some quick n dirty tests to see if there
were any regressions. He benched a large scan followed by vacuum.
Merlin Moncure escribió:
Maybe abstracting 'last xid cache' along with hint bit management out
of both transam.c and tqual.c into something like 'hints.c' is
appropriate, but that's a more invasive change.
It would be good to have such a patch to measure/compare performance of
both
On 11/16/12 9:03 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
Atri ran some quick n dirty tests to see if there
were any regressions. He benched a large scan followed by vacuum. So
far, results are inconclusive so better testing methodologies will
definitely be greatly appreciated. One of the challenges with
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:19 PM Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com
wrote:
Sure, although in scans we are using ring buffer as well so in
practical sense the results are pretty close.
b. Considering sometimes people want
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:19 PM Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com
wrote:
Sure, although in scans we are using ring buffer as well so in
practical sense
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 17:55 -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
So given that -- the patch simple adds an extra check when/where hint
bit status is checked in the visibility routines (currently, only
HeapTupleSatisfiesMVCC is done
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com
wrote:
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:19 PM Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com
wrote:
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 2:02 AM Atri Sharma wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
Following the
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
In each visibility function (except HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum() ), an
addition check has been added to check if the commit status of Xmin or Xmax
of a tuple can be retrieved from the cache.
1. From your
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:27 PM Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com
wrote:
In each visibility function (except HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum() ), an
addition check has been added to check if the commit status of Xmin
or Xmax
of a
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
IMNSHO. deferring non-critical i/o from foreground process to
background process is generally good.
Yes, in regard of deferring you are right.
However in this case may be when foreground process has to mark page dirty
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 17:55 -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
So given that -- the patch simple adds an extra check when/where hint
bit status is checked in the visibility routines (currently, only
HeapTupleSatisfiesMVCC is done but all the applicable visibility
routines should be done).
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com
wrote:
Following the sig is a first cut at a patch (written by Atri) that
attempts to mitigate hint bit i/o penalty when many pages worth of
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com
wrote:
Following the sig is a first cut at a patch (written by Atri) that
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-
ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Merlin Moncure
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 5:26 AM
To: PostgreSQL-development
Cc: Atri Sharma
Subject: [HACKERS] WIP patch for hint bit i/o mitigation
Following the sig is a first cut
On 07-Nov-2012, at 15:46, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-
ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Merlin Moncure
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 5:26 AM
To: PostgreSQL-development
Cc: Atri Sharma
Subject: [HACKERS] WIP
-Original Message-
From: Atri Sharma [mailto:atri.j...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 4:02 PM
To: Amit Kapila
Cc: Merlin Moncure; PostgreSQL-development
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WIP patch for hint bit i/o mitigation
On 07-Nov-2012, at 15:46, Amit Kapila amit.kap
for hint bit i/o mitigation
On 07-Nov-2012, at 15:46, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-
ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Merlin Moncure
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 5:26 AM
To: PostgreSQL-development
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
Following the sig is a first cut at a patch (written by Atri) that
attempts to mitigate hint bit i/o penalty when many pages worth of
tuples are sequentially written out with the same transaction id.
There have been
31 matches
Mail list logo
