Magnus Hagander wrote:
Be curious to see what you've done, but if you're actively changing
things I'll let them settle.
I've got a bit more cleanup to do, but I'm almost there.
Much of it is just cleanup. I've changed the structs arond to be more in
line with the other code around it,
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 16:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Completed all of the agreed changes for TG:
I've just realized that there's a fatal problem with this design.
We've now got tqual.c setting page LSN when it holds only share lock
on the buffer. That
Tom Lane wrote:
And checkpoint_rate really needs to be named checkpoint_min_rate, if
it's going to be a minimum. However, I question whether we need it at
all, because as the code stands, with the default BgWriterDelay you
would have to increase checkpoint_rate to 4x its proposed default
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
(BTW, the patch seems
a bit schizoid about whether checkpoint_rate is int or float.)
Yeah, I've gone back and forth on the data type. I wanted it to be a
float, but guc code doesn't let you specify a float in KB, so I switched
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 10:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
4. If WAL has not been flushed far enough to be certain that the target
transaction's commit is synced, then defer setting the hint bit. This
does not require any new per-transaction state, we can just measure it
on the basis of the lsn
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
(BTW, the patch seems
a bit schizoid about whether checkpoint_rate is int or float.)
Yeah, I've gone back and forth on the data type. I wanted it to be a
float, but guc code doesn't let you specify a float in KB,
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
I still think you've not demonstrated a need to expose this parameter.
Greg Smith wanted to explicitly control the I/O rate, and let the
checkpoint duration vary. I personally think that fixing the checkpoint
duration is better
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Magnus Hagander ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
We enable the setting of the service name in the server configuration
file, but we never use that variable anywhere. We do, however, use the
service name on the client, in order to pick the correct key (and
turning this off
Tom Lane wrote:
Maybe I misread the patch, but I thought that if someone requested an
immediate checkpoint, the checkpoint-in-progress would effectively flip
to immediate mode. So that could be handled by offering an immediate vs
extended checkpoint option in pg_start_backup. I'm not sure it's
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah, I'm not sure that we've thought through the interactions with the
existing bgwriter behavior.
The entire background writer mess needs a rewrite, and the best way to
handle that is going to shift considerably with LDC applied.
As the person who was
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, if we approach this from the idea that there will be *no* GUC
variables at all to control this, and we remove the bgwriter_all_*
settings as well, does anyone see a reason why that would be bad? Here's
the ones mentioned this far:
1. we
Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As the person who was complaining about corner cases I'm not in a position
to talk more explicitly about, I can at least summarize my opinion of how
I feel everyone should be thinking about this patch and you can take what
you want from that.
Sorry, but
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
Greg had worried about being able to turn this behavior off, so we'd
still need at least a bool, and we might as well expose the fraction
instead. I agree with removing the non-LRU part of the bgwriter's write
logic though
If you accept that being able
Greg Smith wrote:
True, you'd have to replay 1.5 checkpoint intervals on average instead
of 0.5 (more or less, assuming checkpoints had been short). I don't
think we're in the business of optimizing crash recovery time though.
If you're not, I think you should be. Keeping that replay
Greg Smith wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
Greg had worried about being able to turn this behavior off, so we'd
still need at least a bool, and we might as well expose the fraction
instead. I agree with removing the non-LRU part of the bgwriter's
write logic though
If you
On Jun 22, 2007, at 9:56 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Magnus Hagander ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
We enable the setting of the service name in the server
configuration
file, but we never use that variable anywhere. We do, however,
use the
service name on the client,
* Henry B. Hotz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Jun 22, 2007, at 9:56 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Most likely it's just checking the keytab to find a principal with the
same name as the one presented from the client. Since one is
present, it
loads it up automatically, and verifies against it.
17 matches
Mail list logo
