At 2021-02-16 21:51:14, "Daniel Gustafsson" wrote:
>> On 16 Feb 2021, at 15:45, chenhj wrote:
>
>> I want to know whether this patch can be accepted by the community, that is,
>> whether it is necessary for me to continue working for this Patch.
>> If you
Hi, hackers
I want to know whether this patch can be accepted by the community, that is,
whether it is necessary for me to continue working for this Patch.
If you have any suggestions, please feedback to me.
Best Regards
Chen Huajun
Hi hackers,
> # Page storage(Plan C)
>
> Further, since the size of the compress address file is fixed, the above
> address file and data file can also be combined into one file
>
> 0 1 2 1230710 1 2
> +===+===+===+ +===+=+=
Sorry, There may be a problem with the display format of the previous mail. So
resend it
At 2020-05-21 15:04:55, "Fabien COELHO" wrote:
>
>Hello,
>
>My 0.02, some of which may just show some mi
At 2020-05-21 15:04:55, "Fabien COELHO" wrote: > >Hello,
> >My 0.02, some of which may just show some misunderstanding on my part: > >
- Could this be proposed as some kind of extension, provided that enough >
hooks are available? ISTM that foreign tables and/or alternative > storage
engine (
Hello hackers!
This email is about the proposal to implement OLTP-oriented compression on
PostgreSQL.
Although there are currently some alternative ways to achieve compression, such
as using a file system that supports compression.
However, this depends on a specific file system and is not suit
Hi,
This database has not had the same failure again 2019/09/16(reported at
2019/09/29), so this is a very low probability failure, but it is uncertain
whether it will happen again in the future. Now add some information for
incident at 2019/09/16, may be useful for analyze the cause of this
Hi,all
In our PostgreSQL 10.7(rhel 6.3) database, autovacuum process and many insert
processes blocked in gin index's LWLock:buffer_content for long time.
In other words, the following gin index lwlock deadlock phenomenon has occurred
again. Since the following bug in 10.7 has been fixed. So
Hi, all
Our other system had encountered the same failure, but this time it is
PostgreSQL 10.7(rhel 6.3).
Details are as follows:
Phenomenon:
app_db=# select count(*) from loba_sp_cost_xcd_104561;
ERROR: could not access status of transaction 35153545
DETAIL: Could not open file "pg_xact
In our PG 10.2(CentOS 7.3) database, the following error is reported when
querying a table. We have already restored the production data through backup,
but i want to confirm what may be the reason and how to avoid it in the future.
lma=# select count(*) from bi_dm.tdm_ttk_site_on_way_rt
Hi
Before we only discussed the connection hang on the primary, the connection
hang on the standby database should be another problem.
When the recovery process replays the gin's delete WAL record, the order of
get lwlock is not the same as the select process,
resulting in a deadlock. Accord
Hi,all
I analyzed the btree block where lwlock deadlock occurred, as follows:
## insert process(ginInsertValue())
644(root blkno)
|
7054(2. held LWLock:0x2aaac587ae64) rightlink>(3.
Acquire LWLock:0x2aaab4009564，buffer = 2119
Hi,all
In our PostgreSQL 10.2 database, two sessions of insert and autovacuum of gin
index blocked in LWLock:buffer_content.
This blocked checkpoint and dead tuple recycle,and we had to restart the
datebase.
According to the information collected from gcore, a deadlock occurred when
acquiring
Hi, hackers!
When execute sql with prepared protocol, read committed transaction will hold
backend_xmin until the end of the transaction.
Is this behavior normal?
Should read committed transaction release backend_xmin immediately after SQL
executing is completed? Just like
when executing sql w
At 2018-01-23 09:56:48, "Stephen Frost" wrote:
>
>I've only read through the thread to try and understand what's going on
>and the first thing that comes to mind is that you're changing
>pg_rewind to not remove the WAL from before the divergence (split)
>point, but I'm not sure why. As noted, t
At 2017-12-01 12:27:09, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 1:20 AM, chenhj wrote:
>> I had filled the authors field of this patch in commitfest, and will rebase
>> this patch if needed. Thank you for your help!
>
>The documentation of the patch ne
16 matches
Mail list logo
