Later version of this patch added to the patch queue.
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews
and approves it.
-
This has been saved for the 8.1 release:
http:/momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches2
---
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 17:00 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > "Marc G. Fournier"
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Do we want to add this additional log infor to CVS for 8.0?
>
> > No, unless we're looking for an RC5?
>
> I vote no as well. While it's probably not a dangerous change, the need
>
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Do we want to add this additional log infor to CVS for 8.0?
> No, unless we're looking for an RC5?
I vote no as well. While it's probably not a dangerous change, the need
for it has not been demonstrated
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Do we want to add this additional log infor to CVS for 8.0?
No, unless we're looking for an RC5?
---
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 19:14 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Rig
Do we want to add this additional log infor to CVS for 8.0?
---
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 19:14 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > Here's my bgwriter instrumentation patch, which gives
On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 19:14 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Here's my bgwriter instrumentation patch, which gives info that could
> > allow the bgwriter settings to be tuned.
>
> Uh, what does this do exactly? Add additional logging output?
>
Produces output like this...
D
This has been saved for the 8.1 release:
http:/momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches2
---
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 17:47, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 17:01, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
> Here's my bgwriter instrumentation patch, which gives info that could
> allow the bgwriter settings to be tuned.
Uh, what does this do exactly? Add additional logging output?
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us
On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 23:03, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 20:09, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > OK, we have a submitted patch that attempts to improve bgwriter by
> > > making bgwriter_percent control what percentage of the buffer is
> > > scanned.
> > >
> > > Th
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 20:09, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > OK, we have a submitted patch that attempts to improve bgwriter by
> > making bgwriter_percent control what percentage of the buffer is
> > scanned.
> >
> > The patch still needs doc changes and a change to the default valu
On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 20:09, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, we have a submitted patch that attempts to improve bgwriter by
> making bgwriter_percent control what percentage of the buffer is
> scanned.
>
> The patch still needs doc changes and a change to the default value but
> at this point we need a
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
OK, we have a submitted patch that attempts to improve bgwriter by
making bgwriter_percent control what percentage of the buffer is
scanned.
The patch still needs doc changes and a change to the default value but
at this point we need a vote on the patch. I
Bruce Momjian writes:
> OK, we have a submitted patch that attempts to improve bgwriter by
> making bgwriter_percent control what percentage of the buffer is
> scanned.
> The patch still needs doc changes and a change to the default value but
> at this point we need a vote on the patch. Is it:
OK, we have a submitted patch that attempts to improve bgwriter by
making bgwriter_percent control what percentage of the buffer is
scanned.
The patch still needs doc changes and a change to the default value but
at this point we need a vote on the patch. Is it:
* too late for 8.0
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > o everyone agrees the current meaning of bgwriter_percent is
> >useless (percent of dirty buffers)
>
> Oh?
>
> It's not useless by any means; it's a perfectly reasonable and useful
> definition that happens to be expensive to implement. O
On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 17:47, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 17:01, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > > Well, I think we're saying: its not in 8.0 now, and we take our time to
> > > consider patches for 8.1 and accept the situation that the parameter
> > > names/meani
Bruce Momjian writes:
> o everyone agrees the current meaning of bgwriter_percent is
> useless (percent of dirty buffers)
Oh?
It's not useless by any means; it's a perfectly reasonable and useful
definition that happens to be expensive to implement. One of the
questions that is
On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 17:01, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > Well, I think we're saying: its not in 8.0 now, and we take our time to
> > consider patches for 8.1 and accept the situation that the parameter
> > names/meaning will change in next release.
>
> I have no problem doing
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 06:20, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > This change isn't going to make it for RC3, and it probably not
> > something we want to rush.
>
> OK. Thank you.
>
> > I think there are a few issues involved:
> >
> > o everyone agrees the current meaning of bgwrit
On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 06:20, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> This change isn't going to make it for RC3, and it probably not
> something we want to rush.
OK. Thank you.
> I think there are a few issues involved:
>
> o everyone agrees the current meaning of bgwriter_percent is
> useless (p
This change isn't going to make it for RC3, and it probably not
something we want to rush.
I think there are a few issues involved:
o everyone agrees the current meaning of bgwriter_percent is
useless (percent of dirty buffers)
o removal of bgwriter_percent will caus
On Fri, 2004-12-31 at 01:14, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-12-27 at 22:21, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Should we consider at least adjusting the meaning of bgwriter_percent?
> >
> > Yes. As things stand, this is the only change that seems safe.
> >
> > Here's a very sh
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-12-27 at 22:21, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Should we consider at least adjusting the meaning of bgwriter_percent?
>
> Yes. As things stand, this is the only change that seems safe.
>
> Here's a very short patch that implements this change within BufferSync
> in buf
On Mon, 2004-12-27 at 22:21, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Should we consider at least adjusting the meaning of bgwriter_percent?
Yes. As things stand, this is the only change that seems safe.
Here's a very short patch that implements this change within BufferSync
in bufmgr.c
- No algorithm changes
-
25 matches
Mail list logo
