On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 16:23 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > Renamed to set_status_by_pages because we never use this on the whole
> > tree. Added comments to say that.
> >
> > Overall, cleaner and more readable now. Thanks.
>
> Committed, thanks.
Cheers.
--
Simon Rig
Simon Riggs wrote:
> Renamed to set_status_by_pages because we never use this on the whole
> tree. Added comments to say that.
>
> Overall, cleaner and more readable now. Thanks.
Committed, thanks.
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replic
On Sun, 2008-10-05 at 14:51 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > OK, spent long time testing various batching scenarios for this using a
> > custom test harness to simulate various spreads of xids in transaction
> > trees. All looks fine now.
>
> I had a look and was mostly re
On Sun, 2008-10-05 at 14:51 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > OK, spent long time testing various batching scenarios for this using a
> > custom test harness to simulate various spreads of xids in transaction
> > trees. All looks fine now.
>
> I had a look and was mostly re
Simon Riggs wrote:
> OK, spent long time testing various batching scenarios for this using a
> custom test harness to simulate various spreads of xids in transaction
> trees. All looks fine now.
I had a look and was mostly rephrasing some comments and the README
(hopefully I didn't make any of th
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 13:48 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 22:47 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > I've tested this some more and am much happier with it now.
>
> The concept is fine, but I've found a coding bug in further testing.
> Please wait now for new version before review
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 22:47 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I've tested this some more and am much happier with it now.
The concept is fine, but I've found a coding bug in further testing.
Please wait now for new version before review.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Trai
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 15:59 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 10:11 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > I wonder if the improved clog API required to mark multiple
> > transactions as committed at once would be also useful to
> > TransactionIdCommitTree which is used in regular tra
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 10:11 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I wonder if the improved clog API required to mark multiple
> transactions as committed at once would be also useful to
> TransactionIdCommitTree which is used in regular transaction commit.
I've hacked together this concept patch (WIP).
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 11:08 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > Perhaps it is sufficient to throw an error if the subxid cache
> > overflows? But I suspect that may not be acceptable...
>
> Certainly not.
Yeh :-) ... it was just a rhetorical question. I'll try to avoid those
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 15:38 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 17:01 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > Subtransactions cause a couple of problems for Hot Standby:
> >
> > Do we need to treat subtransactions any differently from normal
> > transactions?
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 10:11 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Right now we lock and unlock the clog for each committed subtransaction
> >> at commit time, which is wasteful. A better scheme:
> >> pre-scan the list of xids to derive list of pages
> >> if we have just a single page to update
>
Simon Riggs wrote:
> Perhaps it is sufficient to throw an error if the subxid cache
> overflows? But I suspect that may not be acceptable...
Certainly not.
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 10:11 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> Subtransactions cause a couple of problems for Hot Standby:
> >
> > Do we need to treat subtransactions any differently from normal
> > transactions? Just treat all subtransactions as
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 17:01 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Subtransactions cause a couple of problems for Hot Standby:
>
> Do we need to treat subtransactions any differently from normal
> transactions? Just treat all subtransactions as top-level transactions
> until
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Subtransactions cause a couple of problems for Hot Standby:
>
> Do we need to treat subtransactions any differently from normal
> transactions? Just treat all subtransactions as top-level transactions
> until commit, and mark them all as committ
Simon Riggs wrote:
Subtransactions cause a couple of problems for Hot Standby:
Do we need to treat subtransactions any differently from normal
transactions? Just treat all subtransactions as top-level transactions
until commit, and mark them all as committed when you see the commit
record fo
Subtransactions cause a couple of problems for Hot Standby:
* we don't record new subtransactionids in WAL, so we have no direct way
to issue updates to subtrans while in recovery mode as would normally
happen when we assign subtransaction ids (subxids)
* we don't record subtransaction commit in WA
18 matches
Mail list logo
