er command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
--
J. R. Nield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
un, 2002-08-25 at 20:15, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Do we want to add "query caching" to the TODO list, perhaps with a
> question mark?
>
> ---
>
> Greg Sabino Mullan
On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 23:41, Tom Lane wrote:
> "J. R. Nield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The xlog code must allow us to force an advance to the next log file,
> > and truncate the archived file when it's copied so as not to waste
> > space.
>
&g
:
> > > How do you get atomic block copies otherwise?
> >
> > Eh? The kernel does that for you, as long as you're reading the
> > same-size blocks that the backends are writing, no?
>
> Good point.
>
> Vadim
>
--
J. R. Nield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rade potential recovery time for speed without fear
of data-loss. Didn't we have this discussion before?
How is this any worse than a table scan?
--
J. R. Nield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 16:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> "J. R. Nield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The predicate for files we MUST (fuzzy) copy is:
> > File exists at start of backup && File exists at end of backup
>
> Right, which seems to me to negate
extension to the buffer manager to support this if local relations go
through the shared buffers, or coordinating with the local buffer
manager if they continue to work as they do now, which involves major
changes.
We also have to checkpoint at the start, and flush the log at the end.
--
J. R. Nield
27;m maybe having difficulty explaining it
properly. Do you understand the issue I'm raising? Have I made some kind
of blunder, so that this is really not a problem?
--
J. R. Nield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can
E TABLE AS SELECT...'.
So I will remove the local buffer manager as part of the PITR patch,
unless there is further objection.
On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 00:49, Tom Lane wrote:
> "J. R. Nield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I am working on a way to do this with a signal,
o re-enter from a handler.
Does this sound like a good idea?
--
J. R. Nield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
it until I started working on the hot
backup issue.
--
J. R. Nield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
inst 7.2.1 to pgsql-hackers first,
that would let us see what it does.
Let me know if there is anything else I can help you with.
--
J. R. Nield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
this work released to the PostgreSQL
Development group by Progress and Multera, or do they still claim
copyright interest in it?
Regards,
J.R. Nield
On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 12:56, Richard Tucker wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: J. R. Nield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECT
of the log stream. So I need
to change XLOG to handle "skip records", and then to truncate the file
when it gets archived, so we don't have to save up to 16MB of zeros.
Also, if archiving is turned off, then we can't recycle or delete any
logs for the duration of t
allow writes later.
Does this sound like a reasonable timeframe/feature-set to make the 7.3
release?
--
J. R. Nield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
E TABLE, but it
would be interesting to know why it was done before.
;John Nield
--
J. R. Nield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 11:22, Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro wrote:
> I can't improve performance on this query:
Blame Canada!
--
J. R. Nield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archive
On Thu, 2002-07-04 at 11:45, J. R. Nield wrote:
One other item that should be here:
> The big items so-far are:
> ยง1 - Logging Relation file creation, truncation, and removal
> This is mostly done. Can do infinte play-forward from
> online logs.
"LSN greatest lower bound"
or "LSN-GLB":
When referring to a group of blocks, a file, or a group of files:
The greatest possible LSN that is a known-good LSN lower bound for
the group.
"backup file":
A consistent copy of
On Sat, 2002-06-29 at 21:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> "J. R. Nield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I do not think that is the case; and anyway we've pretty much rejected
> >> Vadim's notion of going to an Oracle-style UNDO buffer.
>
> > Could so
; obtrusive. 7.2 made some progress in that direction, but we need more.
>
Could someone point me to this discussion, or summarize what the problem
was? Was his proposal to keep tuple versions in the UNDO AM, or only
pointers to them?
The referred-to message see
On Mon, 2002-06-24 at 17:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think you have been missing the point...
Yes, this appears to be the case. Thanks especially to Curt for clearing
things up for me.
--
J. R. Nield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadc
On Sun, 2002-06-23 at 23:40, Curt Sampson wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2002, J. R. Nield wrote:
>
> > If is impossible to do what you want. You can not protect against
> > partial writes without writing pages twice and calling fdatasync
> > between them while going through a ge
area of PostgreSQL's failing, and general misunderstanding, when
compared to its commercial competitors.
Sincerely,
J. R. Nield
--
J. R. Nield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
On Sun, 2002-06-23 at 21:29, J. R. Nield wrote:
> If is impossible to do what you want. You can not protect against...
Wow. The number of typo's in that last one was just amazing. I even
started with one.
Have an nice weekend everybody :-)
;jrnield
--
J. R. Nield
[EMAIL P
changed page. I don't know how hard this would be
>
We already log that stuff. The page images are in addition to the
"Logical Changes", so we could just stop logging the page images.
--
J. R. Nield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)
l of our "written" data.
Am I reading the bufmgr code correctly? I already found an imaginary
race condition there once :-)
;jnield
>
> > Well, whether or not there's a cheap way depends on whether you consider
> > fsync to be cheap. :-)
>
> It's nev
On Sat, 2002-06-22 at 19:17, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> J. R. Nield wrote:
> > One other point:
> >
> > Page pre-image logging is fundamentally the same as what Jim Grey's
> > book[1] would call "careful writes". I don't believe they should be in
>
e buffer has made it to the disk. Instead, we should have the buffer
IO routines implement ping-pong writes of some kind if we want
protection from partial writes.
Does any of this make sense?
;jrnield
[1] Grey, J. and Reuter, A. (1993). "Transaction Processing: Concepts
29 matches
Mail list logo
