Re: [BUGS] PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag error on 9.0 alpha 4

2010-03-13 Thread Josh Berkus
> It's also my 3rd choice of solution behind fine-grained lock conflicts > (1st) which would avoid many issues and master/standby in lock step > (2nd). Yeah, I just can't imagine you hunting down all of the corner cases for fine-grained lock conflicts in time for 9.0. Given what I've been lookin

Re: [BUGS] PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag error on 9.0 alpha 4

2010-03-13 Thread Simon Riggs
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 11:29 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > That's better, I was worried you'd gone all complimentary on me. > > Never fear that! > > Was that setting originally part of your design for HS? If so, why did > you back off from it? We all agreed its a kluge, that's why. It's also my

Re: [BUGS] PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag error on 9.0 alpha 4

2010-03-13 Thread Josh Berkus
> That's better, I was worried you'd gone all complimentary on me. Never fear that! Was that setting originally part of your design for HS? If so, why did you back off from it? --Josh -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http:

Re: [BUGS] PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag error on 9.0 alpha 4

2010-03-11 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 17:12 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 3/10/10 3:26 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > OK, that's enough to not remove it. I was aware of more negative > > thoughts and conscious of my own feelings about it being a kluge. > > Well, it *is* a kludge, but it may be the best one for peopl

Re: [BUGS] PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag error on 9.0 alpha 4

2010-03-10 Thread Josh Berkus
On 3/10/10 3:26 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > OK, that's enough to not remove it. I was aware of more negative > thoughts and conscious of my own feelings about it being a kluge. Well, it *is* a kludge, but it may be the best one for people who want to use HS/SR to support web applications. So I think

Re: [BUGS] PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag error on 9.0 alpha 4

2010-03-10 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 17:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: > >>> Time to remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age, I think. > >> > >> Umm, so what's the bug? > > > Whether you call it a bug or just an annoyance is debatable, but the > > source of it is clear. > > Maybe to you, but the rest

Re: [BUGS] PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag error on 9.0 alpha 4

2010-03-10 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs writes: >>> Time to remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age, I think. >> >> Umm, so what's the bug? > Whether you call it a bug or just an annoyance is debatable, but the > source of it is clear. Maybe to you, but the rest of us would like to know. > Given the lack of effectiveness, I prop

Re: [BUGS] PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag error on 9.0 alpha 4

2010-03-10 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 23:08 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > > > Time to remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age, I think. > > Umm, so what's the bug? Whether you call it a bug or just an annoyance is debatable, but the source of it is clear. Given the lack of effectiveness, I propose removing it.

Re: [BUGS] PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag error on 9.0 alpha 4

2010-03-10 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 22:02 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> 1. Set up 9.0a4 doing SR replication with a 2nd 9.0a4 >> 2. Ran pgbench for a while. >> 3. Aborted pgbench with Ctl-C >> 4. Changed vacuum_defer_cleanup_age in postgresql.conf and reloaded >> 5. Ran pgbench again, and

Re: [BUGS] PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag error on 9.0 alpha 4

2010-03-10 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 22:02 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > 1. Set up 9.0a4 doing SR replication with a 2nd 9.0a4 > 2. Ran pgbench for a while. > 3. Aborted pgbench with Ctl-C > 4. Changed vacuum_defer_cleanup_age in postgresql.conf and reloaded > 5. Ran pgbench again, and got: > > Sidney-Stratton:pg

[BUGS] PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag error on 9.0 alpha 4

2010-03-09 Thread Josh Berkus
All, What I did: 1. Set up 9.0a4 doing SR replication with a 2nd 9.0a4 2. Ran pgbench for a while. 3. Aborted pgbench with Ctl-C 4. Changed vacuum_defer_cleanup_age in postgresql.conf and reloaded 5. Ran pgbench again, and got: Sidney-Stratton:pg90 josh$ pgbench -c 2 -T 300 bench starting vacuum