On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 11:36:06AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 1 July 2018 at 11:29, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> So at the end, I would like to use the proposed patch and call it a
>> day. Thoughts?
>>
> Patch looks good.
Thanks Craig for the review! I have just pushed the previous patch with
On 1 July 2018 at 11:29, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> So at the end, I would like to use the proposed patch and call it a
> day. Thoughts?
>
>
Patch looks good.
I'll hijack the thread to add a few more perf/dtrace tracepoints in the WAL
code, as they were also missing. Proposed rider patch attac
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:39:00PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 08:48:33AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Are there other instances of fsync() that also need to be covered?
>
> Yeah, I double-checked the calls to pg_fsync back when I looked at this
> patch, but now that I
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 08:48:33AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Are there other instances of fsync() that also need to be covered?
Yeah, I double-checked the calls to pg_fsync back when I looked at this
patch, but now that I look again I see at least two more of them:
- fsync_fname_ext.
- write_aut
On 29.06.2018 15:48, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:32:18PM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
I wonder why we are monitoring time of writing to WAL, but not time of
fsyncing WAL segments?
Is there are principle reason f
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:32:18PM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
>> I wonder why we are monitoring time of writing to WAL, but not time of
>> fsyncing WAL segments?
>> Is there are principle reason for it or just because nobody added i
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:32:18PM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> I wonder why we are monitoring time of writing to WAL, but not time of
> fsyncing WAL segments?
> Is there are principle reason for it or just because nobody added it yet?
> If so, please find very small patch which adding WAIT_
On 6/27/18 12:32 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
I wonder why we are monitoring time of writing to WAL, but not time of
fsyncing WAL segments?
Is there are principle reason for it or just because nobody added it yet?
If so, please find very small patch which adding WAIT_EVENT_WAL_FSYNC
event typ
I wonder why we are monitoring time of writing to WAL, but not time of
fsyncing WAL segments?
Is there are principle reason for it or just because nobody added it yet?
If so, please find very small patch which adding WAIT_EVENT_WAL_FSYNC
event type.
Our engineers in PgPro complain me that ther
