Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
My first thought is that the cycle_ctr just adds extra complexity. The
canceled-flag really is the key in Takahiro-san's patch, so we don't
need the cycle_ctr anymore.
We don't have to have it in the sense of the code not working
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
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps it would be better to have the bgwriter take a look at how many
dead tuples (or how much space the dead tuples account for) when it
writes a page out and adjust the DSM at that time.
Yeah, I feel it is worth optimizable,
> I don't fully understand what "transaction log" means. If it means
> "archived WAL", the current (8.2) code handle WAL as follows:
Probably we can define "transaction log" to be the part of WAL that is
not
full pages.
> 1) If full_page_writes=off, then no full page writes will be
> written
On 4/12/07, Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 11:08 +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
> I think implicit ABORT would annoy various tools that
> partially parse user sql and expect to know what transaction
> state currently is. For them a new tranaction control statement
> woul
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
On 4/12/07, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> The interface etc. may not be beautiful, but it isn't ugly either!
It is
> a lot better than manually creating pg_index records and inserting them
into
> cache; we use index_create() API to create the index (build is
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok. Perhaps we should not use the canceled-flag but just remove the
> entry from pendingOpsTable like we used to when mdsync_in_progress isn't
> set.
I'm not thrilled about that; it seems overly intricate, and won't the
LDC patch make it mostly us
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
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ok. Perhaps we should not use the canceled-flag but just remove the
entry from pendingOpsTable like we used to when mdsync_in_progress isn't
set.
I'm not thrilled about that; it seems overly intricate, and won't the
LDC patch make
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Oh, uh, the problem is that CreateSharedMemoryAndSemaphores wants to
> have access to the PGPROC already, but to obtain the PGPROC we need
> access to autovac shared memory (per AutoVacuumGetFreeProc). So this
> wasn't too bright a choice :-(
It seems like I'll have to de
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe Itagaki-san's motivation for tackling this in the LDC patch
> was the fact that it can fsync the same file many times, and in the
> worst case go to an endless loop, and adding delays inside the loop
> makes it much more likely. After th
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems like I'll have to decouple autovacuum PGPROC's from
> autovacuum's own shared memory. The most sensible way to do this seems
> to be to store them in ProcGlobal, along with the regular backend's
> PGPROCs. Is everyone OK with this plan?
> Not
Bruce Momjian wrote:
NikhilS wrote:
Hi,
On 4/10/07, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Added to TODO:
o Have WITH CONSTRAINTS also create constraint indexes
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-04/msg00149.php
Trevor's patch does add unique/primary
Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 4/12/07, Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 11:08 +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
> > > I think implicit ABORT would annoy various tools that
> > > partially parse user sql and expect to know what transaction
> > > state currently is. For them a new
Hi,
Sorry, inline reply.
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
Yup, this is a good summary.
You say you need to remove the optimization that avoids
the logging of a new tuple because the full page image exists.
I think we must already have the info in WAL which tuple inside the full
page image
Hi Trevor,
+
+ parent_index_info =
BuildIndexInfo(parent_index);
The above is not used anywhere else in the code and seems redundant.
+
+ ereport(NOTICE,
+ (er
On 3/30/07, ITAGAKI Takahiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Attached is an updated DSM patch. I've left the core function of DSM only
and dropped other complicated features in this release.
I was testing this patch when got this server crash. The patch is applied
on the current CVS HEAD. I though
18 matches
Mail list logo
