On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 09:13:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What do people think of exposing pg_usleep() to the user?
>
> I'm not real enthused about it. Generally speaking, a sleep() on the
> database side means you are idling while holding locks, and
Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not very enthused about this. Enforcing 12.5% PCTFREE means that
> you pay 12.5% extra I/O costs across the board for INSERT and SELECT
> and then hope you can make it back (plus some more) on UPDATEs.
> pgbench is a completely UPDATE-dominated benchmark and thus it makes
> s
On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 20:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The whole thing's pretty bizarre.
I hate to sound obvious, but does the missing performance return if you
back the patch out? It seemed to have been decided on Tue, 16 Aug 2005
15:45:30 -0700 that the performance was the same before and after.
OK, I have made those adjustments. The bugs page is only for items that
no one is currently working on --- it isn't an exhaustive list, but as
things become stuck and unfixed, they will be moved there.
---
Tom Lane wrote:
>
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have put together a new web page to show all the PostgreSQL status
> pages I maintain, and I have added a "bugs to be fixed in 8.1" page that
> will track must-fix bugs for this release.
Looks good, but some comments:
We have several open plperl items
I have put together a new web page to show all the PostgreSQL status
pages I maintain, and I have added a "bugs to be fixed in 8.1" page that
will track must-fix bugs for this release. It is at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/pgrelease
I think this should be added to the developers page s
ISTR this question coming up before, but I couldn't find an answer. Is
there a reason we don't build versions of pg_dump and pg_dumpall that
are statically linked against libpq so they can be run uninstalled as
part of a migration process? I should have thought that this would be
extremely easy
Satoshi Nagayasu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've done a quick hack to implement PCTFREE on PostgreSQL.
> ...
> According to my experiments, pgbench score was improved 10% or more
> with 1024 bytes free space.
I'm not very enthused about this. Enforcing 12.5% PCTFREE means that
you pay 12.5% ex
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> As other responders noted, it's trivial to program this in any of the
> untrusted PL languages,
Or in (trusted) plperl - see my post on admin.
I would have been a big fan of a sleep function once, for use in plpgsql,
but since I now have perlperl
Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What do people think of exposing pg_usleep() to the user?
I'm not real enthused about it. Generally speaking, a sleep() on the
database side means you are idling while holding locks, and that does
not seem like something we want to encourage people to do
I wrote:
> Mary Edie Meredith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I have an example of runs that illustrate a performance
>> problem that occurred between installing the 7/18 and 8/1
>> development release codes.
> I dug through the CVS logs to see what had changed, and I'm afraid there
> is just one
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 07:45:38PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> So the short answer is possibly "You build the tests and we'll run 'em."
Would some version of dbt2/3 work for this?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pervasive Softwarehttp://pervasive.com
Hi all,
I've done a quick hack to implement PCTFREE on PostgreSQL.
As you know, it's inspired by Oracle's PCTFREE.
http://www.csee.umbc.edu/help/oracle8/server.815/a67772/schema.htm#990
http://www.comp.hkbu.edu.hk/docs/o/oracle10g/server.101/b10743/cncpt031.gif
Pre-allocated space for each bloc
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I am bit worried about those HAVE_IPV6 ifdefs - they will prolly have
to be modified to C code under windows
Now I consider it you might be right. Here's a list of those places:
[lots]
You should not have to tou
-Original Message-
From: "Michael Fuhr"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 21/08/05 23:53:50
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [HACKERS] Sleep functions
> What do people think of exposing
> pg_usleep() to the user?
Good idea - I've done so myself in the past for testing.
Regar
Michael Fuhr wrote:
What do people think of exposing pg_usleep() to the user? It's
sometimes useful to have a server-side sleep function, and people
do ask about it occasionally (e.g., Don Drake today in pgsql-admin).
It's easy enough to do in PL/Perl, PL/Tcl, etc., but since the
backend alre
What do people think of exposing pg_usleep() to the user? It's
sometimes useful to have a server-side sleep function, and people
do ask about it occasionally (e.g., Don Drake today in pgsql-admin).
It's easy enough to do in PL/Perl, PL/Tcl, etc., but since the
backend already has pg_usleep(), is t
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The one place that very slightly bothers me is the ::1 line in
> pg_hba.conf. The fact that it comes last in the default config is its
> saving grace - it won't ever be reached by a passing connection. I think
> at least, though, we should put a warn
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Is the correct answer to continue marking and running the triggers until
> > > there are no immediate triggers left to run for this case?
> >
> > Hmm ... my recoll
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I am bit worried about those HAVE_IPV6 ifdefs - they will prolly have
>> to be modified to C code under windows
> Now I consider it you might be right. Here's a list of those places:
> [lots]
You should not have to touch the HAVE_IPV6 code --- if you
[adding -hackers to discussion]
[getaddrinfo and friends are broken on some versions of windows]
Maggnus Hagander wrote:
That definitly means it's broken. We need the same binary to run wether
you have it or not - at least if we want it to be included in the
precompiled binaries by the inst
21 matches
Mail list logo
