Re: [PATCHES] WIP: splitting BLCKSZ

2006-04-05 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 15:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > An additional patch enclosed that adds xlog blcksz onto the xlog long > > header at the start of each xlog file, so we can cross-check between > > file and system, as we do with xlog seg size. > > That

Re: [PATCHES] WIP: splitting BLCKSZ

2006-04-05 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 18:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 11:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Hm. The entire point of having a BLCKSZ-sized control file is to have > >> it *not* change in size across format revisions (see the comments) ...

Re: [PATCHES] WIP: splitting BLCKSZ

2006-04-04 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 11:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hm. The entire point of having a BLCKSZ-sized control file is to have >> it *not* change in size across format revisions (see the comments) ... >> which I suppose means that we really ought to have a ha

Re: [PATCHES] WIP: splitting BLCKSZ

2006-04-04 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > An additional patch enclosed that adds xlog blcksz onto the xlog long > header at the start of each xlog file, so we can cross-check between > file and system, as we do with xlog seg size. That would require an xlog format change (XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC bump). M

Re: [PATCHES] WIP: splitting BLCKSZ

2006-04-04 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 17:33 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 11:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I see you've changed the control file back from XLOG_BLCKSZ to BLCKSZ; I > > > wasn't sure which one of those to choose. > > > > Hm. The ent

Re: [PATCHES] WIP: splitting BLCKSZ

2006-04-04 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 11:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I see you've changed the control file back from XLOG_BLCKSZ to BLCKSZ; I > > wasn't sure which one of those to choose. > > Hm. The entire point of having a BLCKSZ-sized control file is to have > it *n

Re: [PATCHES] WIP: splitting BLCKSZ

2006-04-04 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I see you've changed the control file back from XLOG_BLCKSZ to BLCKSZ; I > wasn't sure which one of those to choose. Hm. The entire point of having a BLCKSZ-sized control file is to have it *not* change in size across format revisions (see the comments) .

Re: [PATCHES] WIP: splitting BLCKSZ

2006-04-04 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 19:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Here's an updated patch with help from Simon. Once I get a test system > > going again in the lab I'll start posting some data. I'm planning a > > combination of block sizes (BLCKSZ and XLOG_BLCKSZ) and

Re: [PATCHES] WIP: splitting BLCKSZ

2006-04-03 Thread Tom Lane
Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here's an updated patch with help from Simon. Once I get a test system > going again in the lab I'll start posting some data. I'm planning a > combination of block sizes (BLCKSZ and XLOG_BLCKSZ) and number of WAL > buffers. Applied with minor corrections (

Re: [PATCHES] WIP: splitting BLCKSZ

2006-04-03 Thread Tom Lane
Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here's an updated patch with help from Simon. Once I get a test system > going again in the lab I'll start posting some data. I'm planning a > combination of block sizes (BLCKSZ and XLOG_BLCKSZ) and number of WAL > buffers. If there's no objection, I'll go

Re: [PATCHES] WIP: splitting BLCKSZ

2006-04-03 Thread Jonah H. Harris
On 4/3/06, Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Once I get a test system going again in the lab I'll start > posting some data. I'm planning a combination of > block sizes (BLCKSZ and XLOG_BLCKSZ) and number > of WAL buffers. Cool. I'm looking forward to the results. -- Jonah H. Harris, Datab

Re: [PATCHES] WIP: splitting BLCKSZ

2006-04-03 Thread Mark Wong
Here's an updated patch with help from Simon. Once I get a test system going again in the lab I'll start posting some data. I'm planning a combination of block sizes (BLCKSZ and XLOG_BLCKSZ) and number of WAL buffers. Thanks, MarkIndex: src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c =

Re: [PATCHES] WIP: splitting BLCKSZ

2006-03-24 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 11:27 -0800, Mark Wong wrote: > On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:19:48 -0500 > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I proposed to explore splitting BLCKSZ into separate values for logging > > > and data to see if there might be anything

Re: [PATCHES] WIP: splitting BLCKSZ

2006-03-23 Thread Mark Wong
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:19:48 -0500 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I proposed to explore splitting BLCKSZ into separate values for logging > > and data to see if there might be anything to gain: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/20

Re: [PATCHES] WIP: splitting BLCKSZ

2006-03-22 Thread Tom Lane
Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I proposed to explore splitting BLCKSZ into separate values for logging > and data to see if there might be anything to gain: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-03/msg00745.php > My first pass was to do more or less a search and replace