g new blocks on
every write. I'll send out a new draft of the patch once all of these
changes are done.
Thanks again,
Jerry
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:12 PM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2019-Feb-05, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
>
> > First, since last fall, we have found another pe
confusing wording around "allocating blocks". I ran a clean build and make
check passes. The new patch is attached.
Thanks,
Jerry
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:12 PM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2019-Feb-05, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
>
> > First, since last fall, we have found anoth
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 11:02 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2019-Mar-06, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 12:13 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > > I want your dictating software.
> >
> > I'm afraid this is just me and a keyboard, but sadly for me you're not
> > the first person to ac
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:14 PM Jerry Jelinek
wrote:
>
> It sounds like everyone is in agreement that I should get rid of the
> single COW GUC tunable and provide two different tunables instead. I will
> update the patch to go back to the original name (wal_recycle) for the
&g
Thomas,
Responses in-line.
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:09 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 10:13 AM Jerry Jelinek
> wrote:
> > I have attached a new version of the patch that implements the changes
> we've discussed over the past couple of days. Let me k
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:26 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:35 PM Jerry Jelinek
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:09 PM Thomas Munro
> wrote:
> >> My understanding is that it's not really the COW-ness that makes it
> >> not n
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 6:10 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 10:47 AM Thomas Munro
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:59 AM Robert Haas
> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jerry Jelinek <
> jerry.jeli...@joyent.com> wrote:
&g
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:48 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 11:18 AM Jerry Jelinek
> wrote:
> > I went through your new version of the patch and it all looks great to
> me.
>
> I moved the error handling logic around a bit so we'd capture errno
> i
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 7:16 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 02:56:42PM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
> > I'll take a look at that. I had been trying to keep the patch as minimal
> as
> > possible, but I'm happy to work through this.
>
> (
Peter,
Thanks for taking a look a this. I have a few responses in line. I am not a
PG expert, so if there is something here that I've misunderstood, please
let me know.
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 6:54 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 26.06.18 15:35,
Thomas,
We're using a zfs recordsize of 8k to match the PG blocksize of 8k, so what
you're describing is not the issue here.
Thanks,
Jerry
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 3:37 AM, Jerry Jelinek
> wrote:
> >> If the pr
system specific, is there specific reasons
why we can't provide a tunable to disable this behavior for filesystems
which don't behave that way?
Thanks again,
Jerry
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:35 AM, Jerry Jelinek
wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Attached is a patch to provide a
Alvaro,
I'll perform several test runs with various combinations and post the
results.
Thanks,
Jerry
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 2:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2018-Jul-10, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
>
> > 2) Disabling WAL recycling reduces reliability, even on COW filesystems
other information I could provide.
Thanks,
Jerry
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:35 AM, Jerry Jelinek
wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Attached is a patch to provide an option to disable WAL recycling. We have
> found that this can help performance by eliminating read-modify-write
> behavior
Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to look at this patch and provide
all of the feedback.
I'm going to wait another day to see if there are any more comments. If
not, then first thing next week, I will send out a revised patch with
improvements to the man page change as requested. If anyone
There have been quite a few comments since last week, so at this point I am
uncertain how to proceed with this change. I don't think I saw anything
concrete in the recent emails that I can act upon.
I would like to respond to the comment about trying to "self-tune" the
behavior based on inferences
ussed last week.
I have attached an updated patch which does incorporate man page changes,
in case that is the blocker. However, if this patch is simply rejected, I'd
appreciate it if I could get a definitive statement to that effect.
Thanks,
Jerry
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:35 AM, Jerry Jeli
l 18, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Jerry Jelinek
> wrote:
> > I've gotten a wide variety of feedback on the proposed patch. The
> comments
> > range from rough approval through various discussion about alternative
> > soluti
dquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 17.07.18 00:04, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
> > There have been quite a few comments since last week, so at this point I
> > am uncertain how to proceed with this change. I don't think I saw
> > anything concrete in the recent emails that I can
me know and I'll see what I can
do on my own.
Thanks again,
Jerry
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> On 07/17/2018 09:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 17.07.18 00:04, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
> >> There have been quite a few comments since last week,
ble to say these are essentially equal, but I can collect more data
across more different times if necessary. I'm also happy to collect more
data if people have suggestions for different parameters on the pgbench run.
Thanks,
Jerry
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Jerry Jelinek
wrote:
>
different parameters on the pgbench run.
>
> Thanks,
> Jerry
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Jerry Jelinek
> wrote:
>
>> Thomas,
>>
>> Thanks for your offer to run some tests on different OSes and filesystems
>> that you have. Anything you can
Hello All,
Attached is a patch to provide an option to disable WAL recycling. We have
found that this can help performance by eliminating read-modify-write
behavior on old WAL files that are no longer resident in the filesystem
cache. The is a lot more detail on the background of the motivation fo
mas Vondra wrote:
> > On 07/21/2018 12:04 AM, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
> >> Thomas,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your offer to run some tests on different OSes and
> >> filesystems that you have. Anything you can provide here would be much
> >> appreciated. I
Alvaro,
I have previously posted ZFS numbers for SmartOS and FreeBSD to this
thread, although not with the exact same benchmark runs that Tomas did.
I think the main purpose of running the benchmarks is to demonstrate that
there is no significant performance regression with wal recycling disabled
Tomas,
This is really interesting data, thanks a lot for collecting all of it and
formatting the helpful graphs.
Jerry
On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
>
> On 08/25/2018 12:11 AM, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
> > Alvaro,
> >
> > I have previously pos
Tomas,
Thank you again for running all of these tests on your various hardware
configurations. I was not aware of the convention that the commented
example in the config file is expected to match the default value, so I was
actually trying to show what to use if you didn't want the default, but I
Hi Peter,
I'll take a look at that. I had been trying to keep the patch as minimal as
possible, but I'm happy to work through this.
Thanks,
Jerry
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 10/09/2018 16:10, Jerry Jelin
28 matches
Mail list logo
