> 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
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
> 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:
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
