When grilled further on (Sun, 02 May 2004 11:39:22 -0400),
Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> confessed:
> Robert,
>
> The real question is does it help under real life circumstances ?
I'm not yet at the point where the CS's are causing appreciable delays. I
should get there early this week and w
Robert,
The real question is does it help under real life circumstances ?
Did you do the tests with Tom's sql code that is designed to create high
context switchs ?
Dave
On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 11:20, Robert Creager wrote:
> Found some co-workers at work yesterday to load up my library...
>
> Th
Found some co-workers at work yesterday to load up my library...
The sample period is 5 minutes long (vs 2 minutes previously):
Context switches - avgmax
Default 7.4.1 code : 48784 107354
Default patch - 10 : 20400 28160
patch at 100 : 38574 85372
patch at
Manfred Koizar said:
>
> As Tom has explained in a nearby message his concern is that --
> unlike dead-to-all -- visible-to-all starts as false, is set to true
> at some point in time, and is eventually set to false again.
> Problems arise if one backend wants to set visible-to-all to true
> while
Back in 2001, there was a lengthy thread on the PG Hackers list about PG
and journaling file systems
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2001-05/msg00017.php), but
there was no decisive conclusion regarding what FS to use. At the time
the fly in the XFS ointment was that deletes were
On Sat, 01 May 2004 13:18:04 +0200, Jochem van Dieten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tom Lane wrote:
>> Oh really? I think you need to think harder about the transition
>> conditions.
Indeed.
>>
>> Dead-to-all is reasonably safe to treat as a hint bit because *it does
>> not ever need to be undone
