On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 1:29 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-04-03 14:43:40 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 11:17 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I don't actually see any reason for buffer_limit to be a 16bit quantity?
> > > It's
> > > just to clamp things down, right?
> >
>
Hi,
On 2025-04-03 14:43:40 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 11:17 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > I don't actually see any reason for buffer_limit to be a 16bit quantity?
> > It's
> > just to clamp things down, right?
>
> Ugh. It might be worth just flipping this whole thing ove
On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 11:17 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't actually see any reason for buffer_limit to be a 16bit quantity? It's
> just to clamp things down, right?
Ugh. It might be worth just flipping this whole thing over to ints,
let me look into that...
Hi,
On 2025-03-14 22:03:15 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I have pushed the new pin limit patches, after some more testing and
> copy editing. I dropped an unnecessary hunk (in read_stream_reset(), a
> change I'd like to make but it didn't belong in this commit) and
> dropped the word "Soft" from Ge
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 5:56 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> So one thing is that the pin count differs by 1 at the start of the scan. No
> idea why.
>
> I still don't know what drives the difference between freebsd and the rest,
> but IIUC the reason this fails is just that we are holding too many buff
Hi,
On 2025-03-14 22:03:15 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I have pushed the new pin limit patches, after some more testing and
> copy editing. I dropped an unnecessary hunk (in read_stream_reset(), a
> change I'd like to make but it didn't belong in this commit) and
> dropped the word "Soft" from Ge
I have pushed the new pin limit patches, after some more testing and
copy editing. I dropped an unnecessary hunk (in read_stream_reset(), a
change I'd like to make but it didn't belong in this commit) and
dropped the word "Soft" from GetSoftPinLimit() as it wasn't helping
comprehension and isn't ev
On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 8:29 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-03-12 07:35:46 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 11:20 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2025-02-27 11:19:55 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > I wonder if we should use temp_buffers - 100? Then leave the minimum GUC
Hi,
On 2025-03-12 07:35:46 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 11:20 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2025-02-27 11:19:55 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:55 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > I was working on expanding tests for AIO and as part of that wro
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 11:20 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-02-27 11:19:55 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:55 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I was working on expanding tests for AIO and as part of that wrote a test
> > > for
> > > temp tables -- our coverage is fairl
On 2025-02-27 11:19:55 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:55 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > I was working on expanding tests for AIO and as part of that wrote a test
> > for
> > temp tables -- our coverage is fairly awful, there were many times during
> > AIO
> > development wh
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 11:19 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:55 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > I was working on expanding tests for AIO and as part of that wrote a test
> > for
> > temp tables -- our coverage is fairly awful, there were many times during
> > AIO
> > developmen
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:55 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> I was working on expanding tests for AIO and as part of that wrote a test for
> temp tables -- our coverage is fairly awful, there were many times during AIO
> development where I knew I had trivially reachable temp table specific bugs
> but
Hi,
On 2025-02-17 17:55:09 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> 0004-Respect-pin-limits-accurately-in-read_stream.c.patch
>
> The current coding only computes the remaining "fair share" of the
> buffer pool for this backend at stream initialisation. It's hard, but
> not impossible, to get one backend to
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 6:55 PM Kirill Reshke wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, should we `Assert(*index + n <
> stream->queue_size);` in `read_stream_index_advance_n`?
No: it is allowed to be >= queue_size temporarily, but if so we
subtract queue_size. The result should be equal to (index + n) %
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 5:55 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> The solution we agreed on is to introduce a way for StartReadBuffers()
> to communicate with future calls, and "forward" pinned buffers between
> calls. The function arguments don't change, but its "buffers"
> argument becomes an in/out array:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 09:55, Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Here are some patches that address some of Andres's feedback since the
> AIO v2 rebase[1], anticipate out-of-order streams, and make some other
> minor improvements. They are independent of the main AIO patch set
> and apply to master,
Hi,
Here are some patches that address some of Andres's feedback since the
AIO v2 rebase[1], anticipate out-of-order streams, and make some other
minor improvements. They are independent of the main AIO patch set
and apply to master, hence separate thread.
0001-Refactor-read_stream.c-s-circular-
18 matches
Mail list logo
