On 2021/10/11 14:40, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/10/11 14:28, torikoshia wrote:
Thanks for the patch!
It might be self-evident, but since there are comments on other process
handlings in HandleAutoVacLauncherInterrupts like below, how about adding a
comment for the consistency?
+1
I ap
On 2021/10/11 14:28, torikoshia wrote:
Thanks for the patch!
It might be self-evident, but since there are comments on other process
handlings in HandleAutoVacLauncherInterrupts like below, how about adding a
comment for the consistency?
+1
I applied such cosmetic changes to the patch. Pa
Thanks for the patch!
It might be self-evident, but since there are comments on other process
handlings in HandleAutoVacLauncherInterrupts like below, how about
adding a comment for the consistency?
/* Process barrier events */
if (ProcSignalBarrierPending)
ProcessProcSigna
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 8:58 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> >>> Thanks for the patch. Do we also need to do the change in
> >>> HandleMainLoopInterrupts, HandleCheckpointerInterrupts,
> >>> HandlePgArchInterrupts, HandleWalWriterInterrupts as we don't call
> >>> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() there?
> >
> >> Yeah
On 2021/10/06 17:14, bt21tanigaway wrote:
Thanks for your review.
Thanks for the patch. Do we also need to do the change in
HandleMainLoopInterrupts, HandleCheckpointerInterrupts,
HandlePgArchInterrupts, HandleWalWriterInterrupts as we don't call
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() there?
Yeah, that's
Thanks for your review.
Thanks for the patch. Do we also need to do the change in
HandleMainLoopInterrupts, HandleCheckpointerInterrupts,
HandlePgArchInterrupts, HandleWalWriterInterrupts as we don't call
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() there?
Yeah, that's still some information that the user asked fo
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 5:10 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 12:16:06PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Perhaps that's so, but it doesn't seem like a good reason not to make
> > them more responsive.
>
> Yeah, that's still some information that the user asked for. Looking
> at
On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 12:16:06PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Perhaps that's so, but it doesn't seem like a good reason not to make
> them more responsive.
Yeah, that's still some information that the user asked for. Looking
at the things that have a PGPROC entry, should we worry about the main
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 8:28 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> It's not real clear to me why we need to care about this in those
> processes' idle loops. Their memory consumption is unlikely to be
> very interesting in that state, nor could it change before they
> wake up.
Perhaps that's so, but it doesn't se
Bharath Rupireddy writes:
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 2:50 PM bt21tanigaway
> wrote:
>> Log output takes time between several seconds to a few tens when using
>> ‘SELECT pg_log_backend_memory_contexts(1234)’ with PID of ‘autovacuum
>> launcher’.
>> I made a patch for this problem.
> Thanks for the
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 2:50 PM bt21tanigaway
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Log output takes time between several seconds to a few tens when using
> ‘SELECT pg_log_backend_memory_contexts(1234)’ with PID of ‘autovacuum
> launcher’.
> I made a patch for this problem.
Thanks for the patch. Do we also need to d
Hi,
Log output takes time between several seconds to a few tens when using
‘SELECT pg_log_backend_memory_contexts(1234)’ with PID of ‘autovacuum
launcher’.
I made a patch for this problem.
regards,
Koyu Tanigawa
diff --git a/src/backend/postmaster/autovacuum.c b/src/backend/postmaster/autovac
12 matches
Mail list logo
