Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> >
> > I tested your patch on Linux and Windows. It works well on Linux,
> > where we use fork(), but falls into segfault on Windows, where we
> > use exec(). Maybe you forgot to initialize the shared memory stuff.
> > (I haven't find out where to b
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > I manually merged your patch on top of my own. This is the result.
> > > > Please have a look at whether the new code is correct and behaves sanely
> > > > (I haven't tested it).
> >
> > Huh, you are right, it is br
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I manually merged your patch on top of my own. This is the result.
> > > Please have a look at whether the new code is correct and behaves sanely
> > > (I haven't tested it).
>
> Huh, you are right, it is broken, even in my outgoing mailbox -- I d
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I manually merged your patch on top of my own. This is the result.
> Please have a look at whether the new code is correct and behaves sanely
> (I haven't tested it).
The patch seems to be broken -- the latter half is lost.
Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Taka
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> > > >Yes, that's correct. Per previous discussion, what I actually wanted to
> > > >do was to create a GUC setting to simplify the whole thing, something
> > > >like "autovacuum_max_mb_per_second" or "autovacuum_max_io_per_second".
> > > >Then, have each worker use up to
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> > > >Yes, that's correct. Per previous discussion, what I actually wanted to
> > > >do was to create a GUC setting to simplify the whole thing, something
> > > >like "autovacuum_max_mb_per_second" or "autovacuum_max_io_per_second".
> > > >Then, have each worker use up to
> > >Yes, that's correct. Per previous discussion, what I actually wanted to
> > >do was to create a GUC setting to simplify the whole thing, something
> > >like "autovacuum_max_mb_per_second" or "autovacuum_max_io_per_second".
> > >Then, have each worker use up to (max_per_second/active workers)
Another problem seems to be that I'm not checking anywhere that a
regular connection (not autovac) is not using an autovac-reserved PGPROC
slot :-( I think I should tweak the logic that deals with
ReservedBackends but it doesn't look entirely trivial.
--
Alvaro Herrera
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> >>Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Here is the autovacuum patch I am currently working with. This is
> >>>basically the same as the previous patch; I have tweaked the database
> >>>list management so tha
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here is the autovacuum patch I am currently working with. This is
basically the same as the previous patch; I have tweaked the database
list management so that after a change in databases (say a new databa
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Here is the autovacuum patch I am currently working with. This is
> > basically the same as the previous patch; I have tweaked the database
> > list management so that after a change in databases (say a new database
> > is
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is the autovacuum patch I am currently working with. This is
> basically the same as the previous patch; I have tweaked the database
> list management so that after a change in databases (say a new database
> is created or a database is dropped), t
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Hi,
uhmmm patch?
Here is the autovacuum patch I am currently working with. This is
basically the same as the previous patch; I have tweaked the database
list management so that after a change in databases (say a new database
is created or a database is dropped), the
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is the autovacuum patch I am currently working with.
Obviously I forgot to attach the patch, sorry.
--
Alvaro Herrera Developer, http://www.PostgreSQL.org/
"Para tener más hay que desear menos"
Index: src/backend/postmaster/autovacuu
Hi,
Here is the autovacuum patch I am currently working with. This is
basically the same as the previous patch; I have tweaked the database
list management so that after a change in databases (say a new database
is created or a database is dropped), the list is recomputed to account
for the chang
15 matches
Mail list logo
