On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:03 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> So please use a scale factor that the hardware can cope with.
>
> OK. I tested this out on Nate Boley's 32-core AMD machine, using
> scale factor 100 and scale factor 300. I initialized i
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:03 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> So please use a scale factor that the hardware can cope with.
OK. I tested this out on Nate Boley's 32-core AMD machine, using
scale factor 100 and scale factor 300. I initialized it with Simon's
patch, which should have the effect of renderi
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Given that, I obviously cannot test this at this point,
>>
>> Patch with minor corrections attached here for further review.
>
> A
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Given that, I obviously cannot test this at this point,
>
> Patch with minor corrections attached here for further review.
All right, I will set up some benchmarks with this version, and
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Given that, I obviously cannot test this at this point,
Patch with minor corrections attached here for further review.
> but let me go
> ahead and theorize about how well it's likely to work. What Tom
> suggested before (and after some refl
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Ants Aasma wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 2012 1:27 AM, "Robert Haas"
>
>> However, there is a potential fly in the ointment: in other cases in
>> which we've reduced contention at the LWLock layer, we've ended up
>> with very nasty contention at the spinlock layer that can
On Feb 9, 2012 1:27 AM, "Robert Haas"
> However, there is a potential fly in the ointment: in other cases in
> which we've reduced contention at the LWLock layer, we've ended up
> with very nasty contention at the spinlock layer that can sometimes
> eat more CPU time than the LWLock contention did
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
>> If I cast to a int, then I see advancement:
>
> I'll initialise it as 0, rather than -1 and then we don't have a
> problem in any circumstance.
>
>
>>> I've specifically designed the pgbe
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
Also, I think the general approach is wrong. The only reason to have
>
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> Also, I think the general approach is wrong. The only reason to have
>>> these pages in shared memory is that we can control acce
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> If I cast to a int, then I see advancement:
I'll initialise it as 0, rather than -1 and then we don't have a
problem in any circumstance.
>> I've specifically designed the pgbench changes required to simulate
>> conditions of clog contention
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
Yes, it was. Sorry about that. New version attached, retesting while
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, it was. Sorry about that. New version attached, retesting while
>>> you read this.
>>
>> In my hands I could never get th
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> Yes, it was. Sorry about that. New version attached, retesting while
>> you read this.
>
> In my hands I could never get this patch to do anything. The new
> cache was never used.
>
>
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Also, I think the general approach is wrong. The only reason to have
>> these pages in shared memory is that we can control access to them to
>> prevent write/write and read/write corruption. Since these pages are
>> never written, they don
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> Yes, it was. Sorry about that. New version attached, retesting while
>> you read this.
>
> In my hands I could never get this patch to do anything. The new
> cache was never used.
>
>
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> Also, I think the general approach is wrong. The only reason to have
>> these pages in shared memory is that we can control access to them to
>> prevent write/write and read/write corru
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> Also, I think the general approach is wrong. The only reason to have
> these pages in shared memory is that we can control access to them to
> prevent write/write and read/write corruption. Since these pages are
> never written, they don't nee
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> Yes, it was. Sorry about that. New version attached, retesting while
> you read this.
In my hands I could never get this patch to do anything. The new
cache was never used.
I think that that was because RecentXminPageno never budged from -
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> OT: It would save lots of time if we had 2 things for the CF app:
>
..
> 2. Something that automatically tests patches. If you submit a patch
> we run up a blank VM and run patch applies on all patches. As soon as
> we get a fail, an email go
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
D'oh. You're right. Looks like I accidentally tried to apply this to
the 9.1 sources. Sigh...
>>>
>>> No worries. It's Friday.
>
> Server passed 'make check' with this patch, bu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> D'oh. You're right. Looks like I accidentally tried to apply this to
>>> the 9.1 sources. Sigh...
>>
>> No worries. It's Friday.
Server passed 'make check' with this patch, but when I tried to fire
it up for some test runs, it fell over
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> I've taken that idea and used it to build a second Clog cache, known
>> as ClogHistory which allows access to the read-only tail of pages in
>> the clog. Once a page has been written to for
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I've taken th
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
I've taken that idea and used it to build a second Clog cache, known
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> I've taken that idea and used it to build a second Clog cache, known
>>> as ClogHistory which allows access to the read-only tail o
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> I've taken that idea and used it to build a second Clog cache, known
>>> as ClogHistory which allows access to the read-only tail of
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> I've taken that idea and used it to build a second Clog cache, known
>> as ClogHistory which allows access to the read-only tail of pages in
>> the clog. Once a page has been written to for
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I've taken that idea and used it to build a second Clog cache, known
> as ClogHistory which allows access to the read-only tail of pages in
> the clog. Once a page has been written to for the last time, it will
> be accessed via the ClogHistory
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I've taken that idea and used it to build a second Clog cache, known
> as ClogHistory which allows access to the read-only tail of pages in
> the clog. Once a page has been written to for the last time, it will
> be accessed via the ClogHistory
30 matches
Mail list logo
