> From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Munro
> Another database vendor recommends granting SeLockMemoryPrivilege so that
> it can use large pages on Windows when using several GB of buffer pool.
> I wonder if that might help Post
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
wrote:
> From: Peter Geoghegan [mailto:p...@heroku.com]
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> >> [Windows]
>> >> #clients onoff
>> >> 12 29793 38169
>> >> 24 31587 87237
>> >> 48 32588 83335
>> >> 96
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki <
tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> From: Peter Geoghegan [mailto:p...@heroku.com]
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >> [Windows]
> > >> #clients onoff
> > >> 12 29793 38169
> > >> 24 31587 87237
From: Peter Geoghegan [mailto:p...@heroku.com]
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> [Windows]
> >> #clients onoff
> >> 12 29793 38169
> >> 24 31587 87237
> >> 48 32588 83335
> >> 96 34261 67668
> >
> > This ranges from a 28% to a 97% speed improvement
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 01:58:02PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> [Windows]
> >> #clients onoff
> >> 12 29793 38169
> >> 24 31587 87237
> >> 48 32588 83335
> >> 96 34261 67668
> >
> > This ranges from a 28% to a 97%
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> [Windows]
>> #clients onoff
>> 12 29793 38169
>> 24 31587 87237
>> 48 32588 83335
>> 96 34261 67668
>
> This ranges from a 28% to a 97% speed improvement on Windows! Those are
> not typos! This is a game-changer for
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:53:25AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki <
> tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> > Yeah, I think I agree. It would be bad to disable it by default on
> Uni
From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:mag...@hagander.net]
Applied and backpatched to 9.6.
Thank you very much. I didn’t expect 9.6 to be patched, so I’m very happy.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:53 AM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> >> What's our take on backpatching such changes? Should this be 9.6 only,
> or
> >> back further?
>
> > I would have thought this was a master-only change, alth
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:53 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> What's our take on backpatching such changes? Should this be 9.6 only, or
>> back further?
> I would have thought this was a master-only change, although
> back-patching it to 9.6 would be OK if it gets done RSN. I
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:53 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> What's our take on backpatching such changes? Should this be 9.6 only, or
> back further?
I would have thought this was a master-only change, although
back-patching it to 9.6 would be OK if it gets done RSN. I don't
think changing GUC def
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki <
tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> > Yeah, I think I agree. It would be bad to disable it by default on Unix,
> > because ps(1) is a very standard tool there, but the same argument
> doesn'
From: David Rowley [mailto:david.row...@2ndquadrant.com]
> But perhaps it's better written like:
>
> + This value defaults to "off" on Windows platforms due to the
> platform's significant overhead for updating the process title.
Thank you, I copied this. But I changed "off" to off because other
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
> wrote:
>>> From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
>>> Yeah, I think I agree. It would be bad to disable it by default on Unix,
>>> because ps(1) is a very standard tool there, but the s
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
wrote:
>> From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
>> Yeah, I think I agree. It would be bad to disable it by default on Unix,
>> because ps(1) is a very standard tool there, but the same argument doesn't
>> hold for Windows.
>
> It seems that
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 01:12:39PM +0200, David Rowley wrote:
> On 5 August 2016 at 12:25, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
> wrote:
> > It seems that we could reach a consensus. The patch is attached. I'll add
> > this to the next CommitFest.
>
>
> + The default is off on Windows
> + beca
On 5 August 2016 at 12:25, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
wrote:
> It seems that we could reach a consensus. The patch is attached. I'll add
> this to the next CommitFest.
+ The default is off on Windows
+ because the overhead is significant, and on on other platforms.
"than on other pl
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> Yeah, I think I agree. It would be bad to disable it by default on Unix,
> because ps(1) is a very standard tool there, but the same argument doesn't
> hold for Windows.
It seems that we could reach a consensus. The patch is attached. I'll add
thi
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 3:52 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-08-04 16:48:11 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Here is a different proposal: documenting instead that disabling that
>> parameter on Windows can improve performance, at the cost of losing
>> information verbosity for processes.
>
> Th
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2016-08-04 16:48:11 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Here is a different proposal: documenting instead that disabling that
>> parameter on Windows can improve performance, at the cost of losing
>> information verbosity for processes.
> The benefit on windows seems prett
On 2016-08-04 16:48:11 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Here is a different proposal: documenting instead that disabling that
> parameter on Windows can improve performance, at the cost of losing
> information verbosity for processes.
The benefit on windows seems pretty marginal, given the way it h
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
wrote:
> 1. The performance gain is huge.
> 2. It's almost useless because we can only see the postgres command line with
> Process Explorer, which the user must download from Microsoft and install.
> 3. I don't see the benefit of update_process
Hello,
I'd like to propose changing the default value of update_process_title to off,
at least on Windows. I'll submit a patch if we see no big problem.
PROBLEM
Our customer is trying to certify PostgreSQL with their packaged software
product. Curren
23 matches
Mail list logo
