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
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) ...
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
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
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
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
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) .
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
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 (
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
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
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
=
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
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
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
15 matches
Mail list logo