On E, 2005-08-22 at 23:17 +0300, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On E, 2005-08-22 at 14:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > But I could not find the breakage (from your Aug 17 email) with
> >
> > >> You missed vac_truncate_clog, though.
> >
> > That was fixed (an
On E, 2005-08-22 at 14:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But I could not find the breakage (from your Aug 17 email) with
>
> >> You missed vac_truncate_clog, though.
>
> That was fixed (and documented), along with some other problems,
> in the modified pat
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But I could not find the breakage (from your Aug 17 email) with
>> You missed vac_truncate_clog, though.
That was fixed (and documented), along with some other problems,
in the modified patch I sent back to you:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-pa
On E, 2005-08-22 at 10:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Please try to apply the patch, even if dangling BEGIN WORK; still causes
> > problems - I'll fix this tomorrow.
>
> No. A patch that you yourself have so little confidence in, in a
> fundamental part
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please try to apply the patch, even if dangling BEGIN WORK; still causes
> problems - I'll fix this tomorrow.
No. A patch that you yourself have so little confidence in, in a
fundamental part of the system?
This will be lucky if it gets into 8.2, afte
On E, 2005-08-22 at 02:14 +0300, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Probably nonInVacuumXmin needs more care, i.e. initialising and setting
> it outside GetSnapshotData, at trx start and/or end. I'm too sleepy now
> to investigate further (it's 2:10 am here).
The attached patch works now as advertized so that
On E, 2005-08-22 at 01:14 +0300, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > I fixed this in a more local way by adding an extra "xmin" to proc for
> > transactions where inVacuum is false (proc->nonInVacuumXmin) which is
> > calculated together with proc->xmin.
>
> Somehow this still did not fix the issue of getti
On E, 2005-08-22 at 00:36 +0300, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On K, 2005-08-17 at 14:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Please check the actual patch and advise if anything is still missing.
> >
> > While testing this I realized that it does not in fact work as
On E, 2005-08-22 at 00:36 +0300, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On K, 2005-08-17 at 14:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > That
> > makes the patch far more invasive, and I'm not confident I can work
> > out all the implications. (In particular, the consequences for
> > TransactionIdIsInProgress look bad. I do
On K, 2005-08-17 at 16:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On K, 2005-08-17 at 14:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> While testing this I realized that it does not in fact work as
> >> advertised. It will only exclude long-running VACUUMs from other
> >> VACUUMs'
On K, 2005-08-17 at 14:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Please check the actual patch and advise if anything is still missing.
>
> While testing this I realized that it does not in fact work as
> advertised. It will only exclude long-running VACUUMs from o
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On K, 2005-08-17 at 14:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> While testing this I realized that it does not in fact work as
>> advertised. It will only exclude long-running VACUUMs from other
>> VACUUMs' OldestXmin if *all* the transactions in the system are lazy
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please check the actual patch and advise if anything is still missing.
While testing this I realized that it does not in fact work as
advertised. It will only exclude long-running VACUUMs from other
VACUUMs' OldestXmin if *all* the transactions in the s
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On T, 2005-08-16 at 18:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Some specific concerns:
>>
>> * Given that VACUUM ANALYZE does create new output tuples stamped with
>> its xid, I'm unclear on what happens in pg_statistic with this code in
>> place.
> Actually any
On T, 2005-08-16 at 18:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Once more:
> > I would like to get at least some answer, why my patch for enabling
> > concurrent VACUUM was left out from 8.1.
>
> You did not respond to this:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-
Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Once more:
> > I would like to get at least some answer, why my patch for enabling
> > concurrent VACUUM was left out from 8.1.
>
> You did not respond to this:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-08/msg00238.php
Yep
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Once more:
> I would like to get at least some answer, why my patch for enabling
> concurrent VACUUM was left out from 8.1.
You did not respond to this:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-08/msg00238.php
regards,
Once more:
I would like to get at least some answer, why my patch for enabling
concurrent VACUUM was left out from 8.1.
It was submitted well in time, and there was only minimal amount of
discussion of an earlier patch,and AFAIK I addressed all the issues
raised there.
I really hate to have to
18 matches
Mail list logo
