Re: [PATCHES] pgstat: remove delayed destroy / pipe:

2006-05-02 Thread Magnus Hagander
It turns out the problem is that port/pipe.c is compiled with -DFRONTEND and include/port/win32.h wraps the recv to pgwin32_recv macro in a #ifndef FRONTEND. We've actually been using the WinSock recv function directly (verified with gcc -E). That's definitly wrong. Looks like this file

[PATCHES] Page at a time index scan

2006-05-02 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Here's a patch that implements page at a time index scans discussed at pgsql-hackers earlier. See proposal 1 at: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-03/msg01237.php It passes regression tests, and there's no known bugs. There's some minor issues I'd like to point out, though:

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] patch review, please: Autovacuum/Vacuum times via stats.

2006-05-02 Thread Larry Rosenman
Larry Rosenman wrote: Greetings, I've got a patch to be reviewed for having the stats system keep track of the last time a table was vacuumed or analyzed either by the user or via AutoVacuum. The patch is at: http://www.lerctr.org/~ler/pg-dev/vacuum-autovacuum-times-stats.diff I'd

Re: [PATCHES] Page at a time index scan

2006-05-02 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On Tue, 2 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote: Agreed. The pin has two functions: - keep the page from being moved out of the bufmgr - no need anymore - stop a vacuum from removing the page - no need anymore. We'll not stop on a removable row anymore, so no need. At the moment, backward scan returns to

Re: [PATCHES] Page at a time index scan

2006-05-02 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 2 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote: Also, as noted in other contexts, it'd be a good idea if vacuumcleanup was told the total number of heap tuples (GIN needs this), and both steps really ought to be able to find out if it's a full or lazy vacuum.

Re: [PATCHES] Page at a time index scan

2006-05-02 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 2 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote: Backwards scan may break this whole concept; are you sure you've thought it through? I think so. The patch doesn't change the walk-left code. Do you have something specific in mind? I'm worried about