On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 2:53 PM Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> Thanks for the updated patch. It looks good.
> I marked it in the commitfest as ready for committer.
Pushed. Thanks for the reviews!
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 6:39 PM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 5:24 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> > At Sat, 17 Nov 2018 11:15:54 -0300, Alvaro Herrera <
> alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote in
> <20181117141554.4dkx2u4j6md3bqdh@alvherre.pgsql>
> > > Is this patch committable now?
>
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 5:24 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> At Sat, 17 Nov 2018 11:15:54 -0300, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote in <20181117141554.4dkx2u4j6md3bqdh@alvherre.pgsql>
> > Is this patch committable now?
>
> I don't think so. We should make a decision on a point.
>
> I was a bit confused (sorry
At Sat, 17 Nov 2018 11:15:54 -0300, Alvaro Herrera
wrote in <20181117141554.4dkx2u4j6md3bqdh@alvherre.pgsql>
> Is this patch committable now?
I don't think so. We should make a decision on a point.
I was a bit confused (sorry) but IIUIC Haribabu suggested that
the RBM_ZERO_ON_ERROR case should
Is this patch committable now?
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
At Thu, 12 Jul 2018 10:31:46 +1200, Thomas Munro
wrote in
> I suppose someone might argue that even when it's not a hit and it's
> not a read, we might still want to count this buffer interaction in
> some other way. Perhaps there should be a separate counter? It may
> technically be a kind o
On 12 July 2018 at 12:19, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> Yes, I agree that we may need a new counter that counts the buffers that
> are just allocated (no read or no write). But currently, may be the counter
> value is very less, so people are not interested.
The existing counters don't show up in EXPLA
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 8:32 AM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:46 AM, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
> >> > On 2018-04-30 14:59:31 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> >> >> In EXPLAIN (BUFFERS), there are two kinds of cache misses that show
> up
> >> >> as "reads" when in fact they are not r
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:46 AM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
>> > On 2018-04-30 14:59:31 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> >> In EXPLAIN (BUFFERS), there are two kinds of cache misses that show up
>> >> as "reads" when in fact they are not reads at all:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Relation extension, which in fact wri
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 1:38 PM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2018-04-30 14:59:31 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> >> In EXPLAIN (BUFFERS), there are two kinds of cache misses that show up
> >> as "reads" when in fact they are not reads at all:
>
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-04-30 14:59:31 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> In EXPLAIN (BUFFERS), there are two kinds of cache misses that show up
>> as "reads" when in fact they are not reads at all:
>>
>> 1. Relation extension, which in fact writes a zero-filled
On 2018-04-30 14:59:31 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In EXPLAIN (BUFFERS), there are two kinds of cache misses that show up
> as "reads" when in fact they are not reads at all:
>
> 1. Relation extension, which in fact writes a zero-filled block.
> 2. The RBM_ZERO_* modes, which provoke n
12 matches
Mail list logo
