On 2021/02/18 16:26, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-02-16 16:59, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/15 15:17, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/10 10:43, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/09 23:31, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-02-09 22:54, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/09 19:11, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2
On 2021-02-16 16:59, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/15 15:17, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/10 10:43, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/09 23:31, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-02-09 22:54, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/09 19:11, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/09 18:13, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2
On 2021/02/15 15:17, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/10 10:43, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/09 23:31, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-02-09 22:54, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/09 19:11, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/09 18:13, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/09 17:48, torikoshia wrote:
On
On 2021/02/10 10:43, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/09 23:31, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-02-09 22:54, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/09 19:11, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/09 18:13, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/09 17:48, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-02-05 18:49, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2
On 2021/02/09 23:31, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-02-09 22:54, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/09 19:11, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/09 18:13, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/09 17:48, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-02-05 18:49, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/05 0:03, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-0
On 2021-02-09 22:54, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/09 19:11, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/09 18:13, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/09 17:48, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-02-05 18:49, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/05 0:03, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-02-03 11:23, Fujii Masao wrote:
64-bit fetc
On 2021/02/09 19:11, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/09 18:13, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/09 17:48, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-02-05 18:49, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/05 0:03, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-02-03 11:23, Fujii Masao wrote:
64-bit fetches are not atomic on some platforms.
On 2021/02/09 18:13, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/09 17:48, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-02-05 18:49, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/05 0:03, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-02-03 11:23, Fujii Masao wrote:
64-bit fetches are not atomic on some platforms. So spinlock is necessary when updating
"w
On 2021/02/09 17:48, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-02-05 18:49, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/05 0:03, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-02-03 11:23, Fujii Masao wrote:
64-bit fetches are not atomic on some platforms. So spinlock is necessary when updating
"waitStart" without holding the partition loc
On 2021-02-05 18:49, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/05 0:03, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-02-03 11:23, Fujii Masao wrote:
64-bit fetches are not atomic on some platforms. So spinlock is
necessary when updating "waitStart" without holding the partition
lock? Also GetLockStatusData() needs spinlock
On 2021/02/05 0:03, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-02-03 11:23, Fujii Masao wrote:
64-bit fetches are not atomic on some platforms. So spinlock is necessary when updating
"waitStart" without holding the partition lock? Also GetLockStatusData() needs spinlock
when reading "waitStart"?
Also it mi
On 2021-02-03 11:23, Fujii Masao wrote:
64-bit fetches are not atomic on some platforms. So spinlock is
necessary when updating "waitStart" without holding the partition
lock? Also GetLockStatusData() needs spinlock when reading
"waitStart"?
Also it might be worth thinking to use 64-bit atomi
On 2021/02/03 1:49, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/02/02 22:00, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-01-25 23:44, Fujii Masao wrote:
Another comment is; Doesn't the change of MyProc->waitStart need the
lock table's partition lock? If yes, we can do that by moving
LWLockRelease(partitionLock) just after t
On 2021/02/02 22:00, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-01-25 23:44, Fujii Masao wrote:
Another comment is; Doesn't the change of MyProc->waitStart need the
lock table's partition lock? If yes, we can do that by moving
LWLockRelease(partitionLock) just after the change of
MyProc->waitStart, but which
On 2021-01-25 23:44, Fujii Masao wrote:
Another comment is; Doesn't the change of MyProc->waitStart need the
lock table's partition lock? If yes, we can do that by moving
LWLockRelease(partitionLock) just after the change of
MyProc->waitStart, but which causes the time that lwlock is being held
t
On 2021/01/22 18:11, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/01/22 14:37, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-01-21 12:48, Fujii Masao wrote:
Thanks for updating the patch! I think that this is really useful feature!!
Thanks for reviewing!
I have two minor comments.
+
+ wait_start timestamptz
On 2021/01/22 14:37, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-01-21 12:48, Fujii Masao wrote:
Thanks for updating the patch! I think that this is really useful feature!!
Thanks for reviewing!
I have two minor comments.
+
+ wait_start timestamptz
The column name "wait_start" should be "wai
On 2021-01-21 12:48, Fujii Masao wrote:
Thanks for updating the patch! I think that this is really useful
feature!!
Thanks for reviewing!
I have two minor comments.
+ role="column_definition">
+ wait_start timestamptz
The column name "wait_start" should be "waitstart" for the s
On 2021/01/18 12:00, torikoshia wrote:
On 2021-01-15 15:23, torikoshia wrote:
Thanks for your reviewing and comments!
On 2021-01-14 12:39, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
Looking at the code, this happens as the wait start time is being recorded in
the lock record itself, so always contains the
On 2021-01-15 15:23, torikoshia wrote:
Thanks for your reviewing and comments!
On 2021-01-14 12:39, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
Looking at the code, this happens as the wait start time is being
recorded in
the lock record itself, so always contains the value reported by the
latest lock
acquis
Thanks for your reviewing and comments!
On 2021-01-14 12:39, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
Looking at the code, this happens as the wait start time is being
recorded in
the lock record itself, so always contains the value reported by the
latest lock
acquisition attempt.
I think you are right a
2021年1月15日(金) 3:45 Robert Haas :
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:40 PM Ian Lawrence Barwick
> wrote:
> > It looks like the logical place to store the value is in the PROCLOCK
> > structure; ...
>
> That seems surprising, because there's one PROCLOCK for every
> combination of a process and a lock. B
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:40 PM Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
> It looks like the logical place to store the value is in the PROCLOCK
> structure; ...
That seems surprising, because there's one PROCLOCK for every
combination of a process and a lock. But, a process can't be waiting
for more than on
Hi
2021年1月4日(月) 15:04 torikoshia :
>
> On 2021-01-02 06:49, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 11:47:23AM +0900, torikoshia wrote:
> >> So I'm now thinking about adding a new column in pg_locks which
> >> keeps the time at which locks started waiting.
> >>
> >> Attached a patch.
> >
On 2021-01-02 06:49, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 11:47:23AM +0900, torikoshia wrote:
So I'm now thinking about adding a new column in pg_locks which
keeps the time at which locks started waiting.
Attached a patch.
This is failing make check-world, would you send an updated pa
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 11:47:23AM +0900, torikoshia wrote:
> So I'm now thinking about adding a new column in pg_locks which
> keeps the time at which locks started waiting.
>
> Attached a patch.
This is failing make check-world, would you send an updated patch ?
I added you as an author so it
26 matches
Mail list logo
