Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Adjust autovacuum naptime automatically

2006-08-16 Thread Matthew T. O'Connor
Alvaro Herrera wrote: ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: In the case of a heavily update workload, the default naptime (60 seconds) is too long to keep the number of dead tuples low. With my patch, the naptime will be adjusted around 3 seconds at the case of pgbench (scale=10, 80 tps) with default other a

Re: [PATCHES] Adjust autovacuum naptime automatically

2006-08-16 Thread Alvaro Herrera
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: > In the case of a heavily update workload, the default naptime (60 seconds) > is too long to keep the number of dead tuples low. With my patch, the naptime > will be adjusted around 3 seconds at the case of pgbench (scale=10, 80 tps) > with default other autovacuum paramet

[PATCHES] Adjust autovacuum naptime automatically

2006-08-16 Thread ITAGAKI Takahiro
Hi hackers, There is a comment in autovacuum.c: | XXX todo: implement sleep scale factor that existed in contrib code. and the attached is a patch to implement it. In contrib code, sleep scale factor was used to adjust naptime only to lengthen the naptime. But I changed the behavior to be able to

Re: [PATCHES] CREATE INDEX ... ONLINE

2006-08-16 Thread Greg Stark
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Updated patch. Fixed a few minor things, added documentation and regression > > tests. Unfortunately I can't test the regression tests because I get a > > segmentation fault earlier in the same file due to a GIN inde

Re: [PATCHES] WIP archive_timeout patch

2006-08-16 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 10:09 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 19:03 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 13:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > WIP archive_timeout. > > > > All we need to do is add LWLock support to archiver

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-08-16 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 17:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Wise one: what should my pg_proc look like? > > > DATA(insert OID = 2850 ( pg_xlogfile_name_offsetPGNSP PGUID 12 f f t f > > i 1 2249 "25" "25 25 23" "i o o" _null_ pg_xlogfile_name_offset - > > _n

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-08-16 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Wise one: what should my pg_proc look like? > DATA(insert OID = 2850 ( pg_xlogfile_name_offset PGNSP PGUID 12 f f t f > i 1 2249 "25" "25 25 23" "i o o" _null_ pg_xlogfile_name_offset - > _null_ )); Oh, as far as that goes, the array columns need to

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-08-16 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 16:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > but my initdb fails with > > > creating template1 database in a/base/1 ... FATAL: cache lookup failed > > for type 26 > > Um ... when did you last "cvs update"? That was the behavior up till I > fix

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-08-16 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > but my initdb fails with > creating template1 database in a/base/1 ... FATAL: cache lookup failed > for type 26 Um ... when did you last "cvs update"? That was the behavior up till I fixed array_in for bootstrap mode, yesterday afternoon ...

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-08-16 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 11:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > We want a single row output, with two columns, yes? > > Presumably: > > xlogfilenameTEXT > > offset INTEGER > > Sounds right to me. int4 should be wide enough for practical xlog >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-08-16 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 08:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 18:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> So let's fix pg_xlogfile_name_offset() to have two OUT parameters > >> instead of returning a smushed-together string. > > > I'll do this, but I'

Re: [PATCHES] CREATE INDEX ... ONLINE

2006-08-16 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Updated patch. Fixed a few minor things, added documentation and regression > tests. Unfortunately I can't test the regression tests because I get a > segmentation fault earlier in the same file due to a GIN index build. So I > haven't updated the "expected"

Re: [PATCHES] selecting large result sets in psql using cursors

2006-08-16 Thread Tom Lane
Chris Mair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > attached is the new and fixed version of the patch for selecting > large result sets from psql using cursors. The is_select_command bit is wrong because it doesn't allow for left parentheses in front of the SELECT keyword (something entirely reasonable when

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-08-16 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We want a single row output, with two columns, yes? > Presumably: > xlogfilenameTEXT > offset INTEGER Sounds right to me. int4 should be wide enough for practical xlog segment sizes. regards, tom lane ---

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

2006-08-16 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 18:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> So let's fix pg_xlogfile_name_offset() to have two OUT parameters >> instead of returning a smushed-together string. > I'll do this, but I'm conscious that this is a cosmetic change. Well, it's cosmeti