On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:11:22PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Marko Kreen's message of jue dic 29 15:22:49 -0300 2011:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 03:12:50PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Excerpts from Marko Kreen's message of jue dic 29 15:04:49 -0300 2011:
> > > > 3
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> On 28.12.2011 01:39, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>>> wrote:
On 25.12.2011 15:01, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
> I don't believe that. Double-writing is a
> Nicolas Barbier wrote:
> 2011/12/30 Ants Aasma :
>> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>
>>> positives. To get this right for a checksum in the page header,
>>> double-write would need to be used for all cases where
>>> full_page_writes now are used (i.e., the first write of a page
>>> after a checkpoint),
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> if there is no checksum in the page itself, you can put one in the
>> double-write metadata.
> However, I don't see that it provides protection across non-crash
> write problems. We know we have these since many systems have run
> without a cras
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> You wind up with a database free of torn pages before you apply WAL.
> full_page_writes to the WAL are not needed as long as double-write is
> used for any pages which would have been written to the WAL. If
> checksums were written to the
Manabu Ori writes:
> 2011/12/30 Tom Lane
>> The info that I've found says that the hint exists beginning in POWER6,
>> and there were certainly 64-bit Power machines before that. However,
>> it might be that the only machines that actually spit up on the hint bit
>> (rather than ignore it) were
On fre, 2011-12-30 at 14:47 +0900, Manabu Ori wrote:
> If we can decide whether to use the hint operand when we build
> postgres, I think it's better to check if we can compile and run
> a sample code with lwarx hint operand than to refer to some
> arbitrary defines, such as FOO_PPC64 or something.
On 12/30/2011 11:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Manabu Ori writes:
2011/12/30 Tom Lane
The info that I've found says that the hint exists beginning in POWER6,
and there were certainly 64-bit Power machines before that. However,
it might be that the only machines that actually spit up on the hint bi
On 12/29/11, Ants Aasma wrote:
> Unless I'm missing something, double-writes are needed for all writes,
> not only the first page after a checkpoint. Consider this sequence of
> events:
>
> 1. Checkpoint
> 2. Double-write of page A (DW buffer write, sync, heap write)
> 3. Sync of heap, releasing
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> * A spreadsheet that shows the results of re-running my earlier heap
> tuple sorting benchmark with this new patch. The improvement in the
> query that orders by 2 columns is all that is pertinent there, when
> considering the value of (1)
On 30 December 2011 19:46, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Peter Geoghegan
> wrote:
>> * A spreadsheet that shows the results of re-running my earlier heap
>> tuple sorting benchmark with this new patch. The improvement in the
>> query that orders by 2 columns is all tha
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 30 December 2011 19:46, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Peter Geoghegan
>> wrote:
>>> * A spreadsheet that shows the results of re-running my earlier heap
>>> tuple sorting benchmark with this new patch. The
On ons, 2011-08-24 at 11:24 -0700, Daniel Farina wrote:
> At Heroku we use CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY with great success, but
> recently when frobbing around some indexes I realized that there is no
> equivalent for DROP INDEX, and this is a similar but lesser problem
> (as CREATE INDEX takes much l
13 matches
Mail list logo
