On 2021-Nov-30, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 at 17:39, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>
> > So +1 to just get this committed, as it is.
>
> This is a real issue affecting Postgres users. Please commit this soon.
Uh ouch, I had forgotten that this patch was mine (blush). Thanks for
the ping
On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 at 17:39, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> So +1 to just get this committed, as it is.
This is a real issue affecting Postgres users. Please commit this soon.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Hi,
I think this is ready to go. I was wondering why it merely doubles the
number of buffers, as described by previous comments. That seems like a
very tiny increase, so considering how much the hardware grew over the
last few years it'd probably fail to help some of the large boxes.
But it
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 11:56 PM Andrey Borodin wrote:
> > 16 янв. 2021 г., в 03:07, Alvaro Herrera
> > написал(а):
> > Andrey Borodin already has a patch to change the behavior for
> > multixact, which is something we should perhaps also do. I now notice
> > that they're also reporting a bug i
> 16 янв. 2021 г., в 03:07, Alvaro Herrera написал(а):
>
> Andrey Borodin already has a patch to change the behavior for
> multixact, which is something we should perhaps also do. I now notice
> that they're also reporting a bug in that thread ... sigh
I've tried in that thread [0] to do mor
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 07:07:44PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I wrote this patch last year in response to a customer issue and I
> thought I had submitted it here, but evidently I didn't. So here it is.
>
> The short story is: in commit 5364b357fb11 we increased the size of
> pg_commit (née p
