On 15 April 2016 at 12:45, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I think there are a lot of extensions which create functions which
> could benefit from being declared parallel safe. But how does one go
> about doing that?
>
> create extension xml2;
> select xml_valid(filler),count(*) from pgbench_accounts group
Hi,
Pgbench allows -f and -S combinations together where the doc says that -S
effectively uses the internal select-only script.
Is it okay to assume that -f is disregarded here? Or are they run in
round-robin fashion (although then, how does it know which read-only part
of my script to run?) or s
On April 16, 2016 6:02:39 PM PDT, Tom Lane wrote:
>I wrote:
>> So at this point I'm not sure what to do. I could back out the
>back-patch
>> of 44cd47c1d49655c5, which would mean accepting that 9.2/9.3 are
>broken
>> and will never be fixed for HPPA, as well as any other architectures
>that
>>
I wrote:
> So at this point I'm not sure what to do. I could back out the back-patch
> of 44cd47c1d49655c5, which would mean accepting that 9.2/9.3 are broken
> and will never be fixed for HPPA, as well as any other architectures that
> use the same fallback memory barrier implementation. The lac
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 03:28:23PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-16 18:23:01 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 09:00:57AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > I can think of a number of relatively easy ways to a
Hi,
On 2016-04-16 18:27:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2016-04-16 17:52:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> That's more than a 5X penalty, which seems like it would make the
> >> feature unusable; unless there is an argument that that's an extreme
> >> case that wouldn't be r
On 2016-04-16 18:23:01 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 09:00:57AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I can think of a number of relatively easy ways to address this:
> > > 1) Just zap (or issue?) all pending flush requests w
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2016-04-16 17:52:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That's more than a 5X penalty, which seems like it would make the
>> feature unusable; unless there is an argument that that's an extreme
>> case that wouldn't be representative of most real-world usage.
>> Which there may we
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 09:00:57AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I can think of a number of relatively easy ways to address this:
> > 1) Just zap (or issue?) all pending flush requests when getting an
> >smgrinval/smgrclosenode
> > 2) Do
On 2016-04-16 17:52:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2016-04-16 16:44:52 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> That is more controversial than the potential ~2% regression for
> >> old_snapshot_threshold=-1. Alvaro[2] and Robert[3] are okay releasing
> >> that way, and Andres[4] i
On 16/04/2016 20:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> Julien Rouhaud writes:
>
>> Also, in dataPlaceToPageLeaf() and ginVacuumPostingTreeLeaf(), shouldn't
>> the START_CRIT_SECTION() calls be placed before the xlog code?
>
> Yeah, they should. Evidently somebody kluged it to avoid doing a palloc
> inside a cr
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2016-04-16 16:44:52 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>> That is more controversial than the potential ~2% regression for
>> old_snapshot_threshold=-1. Alvaro[2] and Robert[3] are okay releasing
>> that way, and Andres[4] is not.
> FWIW, I could be kinda convinced that it's tem
On 2016-04-16 16:44:52 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> That is more controversial than the potential ~2% regression for
> old_snapshot_threshold=-1. Alvaro[2] and Robert[3] are okay releasing
> that way, and Andres[4] is not.
FWIW, I could be kinda convinced that it's temporarily ok, if there'd be
a c
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:21:31PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> If 2201d801 was not included in your -1 tests, have you identified
> where the 2% extra run time is going on -1 versus reverted? Since
> several other threads lately have reported bigger variation than
> that based on random memory
Julien Rouhaud writes:
> After some digging, the leak comes from walbufbegin palloc in
> registerLeafRecompressWALData().
> IIUC, walbufbegin isn't pfree-d and can't be before XLogInsert() is
> called, which happens in ginPlaceToPage().
Hmm.
> I don't see a simple way to fix that. My first idea
Hello,
Another colleague provided a report of memory leak, during a GIN index
build. Test case to reproduce the attached (need to create a gin index
on the val column after loading). Sorry, it generates a 24GB table, and
memory start leaking with a 1GB maintenance_work_mem after reaching 8 or
9 ti
This rabbit hole keeps getting deeper and deeper :-(
I realized a couple days ago that it had been close to three years since
I last tried building the further-back branches on my ancient HPPA box.
Not so surprisingly, things were broken: commits 37de8de9e33606a0 et al
had introduced use of memory
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:08:23PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:22:27AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > > Well, if we *don't* do the rewrite before we
David Rowley writes:
> On 15 April 2016 at 13:43, David Rowley wrote:
>> The attached patch just disallows any index containing a system
>> column, apart from OID.
> Seems I only did half the job as I forgot to think to check for system
> columns that are hidden away inside expressions or predica
There is a paper that any one interested in performance at high
concurrency, especially in Linux, should read[1]. While doing
other work, a group of researchers saw behavior that they suspected
was due to scheduler bugs in Linux. There were no tools that made
proving that practical, so they devel
On 04/14/2016 07:28 PM, David Steele wrote:
As far as I know pg_dump share locks everything before it starts so
there shouldn't be issues with concurrent DDL. Try creating a new
inherited table with FKs, etc. during a pg_dump and you'll see lots of
fun lock waits.
I am pretty sure that it does
On 2016-04-03 09:24, Piotr Stefaniak wrote:
from running the regression test suite (including TAP tests) and also
sqlsmith, I've got a couple of places where UBSan reported calls to
memcpy() with null pointer passed as either source or destination.
Patch attached.
Patch updated.
Since this ti
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Andres Freund
wrote:
> >> And, on the other hand, if we don't do something like that, it will be
> >> quite an exceptional case to find anything on the free list. Doing it
> >> just to speed up develop
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>
> At Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:52:56 +0530, Amit Kapila
wrote :
> >
> > How about if we do all the parsing stuff in temporary context and then
copy
> > the results using TopMemoryContext? I don't think it wi
24 matches
Mail list logo
