On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>
> At Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:52:56 +0530, Amit Kapila
wrote :
> >
> > How about if we do all the parsing stuff in temporary context and then
copy
> > the results using TopMemoryContext? I don't think it wi
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Andres Freund
wrote:
> >> And, on the other hand, if we don't do something like that, it will be
> >> quite an exceptional case to find anything on the free list. Doing it
> >> just to speed up develop
On 2016-04-03 09:24, Piotr Stefaniak wrote:
from running the regression test suite (including TAP tests) and also
sqlsmith, I've got a couple of places where UBSan reported calls to
memcpy() with null pointer passed as either source or destination.
Patch attached.
Patch updated.
Since this ti
On 04/14/2016 07:28 PM, David Steele wrote:
As far as I know pg_dump share locks everything before it starts so
there shouldn't be issues with concurrent DDL. Try creating a new
inherited table with FKs, etc. during a pg_dump and you'll see lots of
fun lock waits.
I am pretty sure that it does
There is a paper that any one interested in performance at high
concurrency, especially in Linux, should read[1]. While doing
other work, a group of researchers saw behavior that they suspected
was due to scheduler bugs in Linux. There were no tools that made
proving that practical, so they devel
David Rowley writes:
> On 15 April 2016 at 13:43, David Rowley wrote:
>> The attached patch just disallows any index containing a system
>> column, apart from OID.
> Seems I only did half the job as I forgot to think to check for system
> columns that are hidden away inside expressions or predica
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:08:23PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:22:27AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > > Well, if we *don't* do the rewrite before we
This rabbit hole keeps getting deeper and deeper :-(
I realized a couple days ago that it had been close to three years since
I last tried building the further-back branches on my ancient HPPA box.
Not so surprisingly, things were broken: commits 37de8de9e33606a0 et al
had introduced use of memory
Hello,
Another colleague provided a report of memory leak, during a GIN index
build. Test case to reproduce the attached (need to create a gin index
on the val column after loading). Sorry, it generates a 24GB table, and
memory start leaking with a 1GB maintenance_work_mem after reaching 8 or
9 ti
Julien Rouhaud writes:
> After some digging, the leak comes from walbufbegin palloc in
> registerLeafRecompressWALData().
> IIUC, walbufbegin isn't pfree-d and can't be before XLogInsert() is
> called, which happens in ginPlaceToPage().
Hmm.
> I don't see a simple way to fix that. My first idea
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:21:31PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> If 2201d801 was not included in your -1 tests, have you identified
> where the 2% extra run time is going on -1 versus reverted? Since
> several other threads lately have reported bigger variation than
> that based on random memory
On 2016-04-16 16:44:52 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> That is more controversial than the potential ~2% regression for
> old_snapshot_threshold=-1. Alvaro[2] and Robert[3] are okay releasing
> that way, and Andres[4] is not.
FWIW, I could be kinda convinced that it's temporarily ok, if there'd be
a c
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2016-04-16 16:44:52 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>> That is more controversial than the potential ~2% regression for
>> old_snapshot_threshold=-1. Alvaro[2] and Robert[3] are okay releasing
>> that way, and Andres[4] is not.
> FWIW, I could be kinda convinced that it's tem
On 16/04/2016 20:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> Julien Rouhaud writes:
>
>> Also, in dataPlaceToPageLeaf() and ginVacuumPostingTreeLeaf(), shouldn't
>> the START_CRIT_SECTION() calls be placed before the xlog code?
>
> Yeah, they should. Evidently somebody kluged it to avoid doing a palloc
> inside a cr
On 2016-04-16 17:52:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2016-04-16 16:44:52 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> That is more controversial than the potential ~2% regression for
> >> old_snapshot_threshold=-1. Alvaro[2] and Robert[3] are okay releasing
> >> that way, and Andres[4] i
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 09:00:57AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I can think of a number of relatively easy ways to address this:
> > 1) Just zap (or issue?) all pending flush requests when getting an
> >smgrinval/smgrclosenode
> > 2) Do
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2016-04-16 17:52:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That's more than a 5X penalty, which seems like it would make the
>> feature unusable; unless there is an argument that that's an extreme
>> case that wouldn't be representative of most real-world usage.
>> Which there may we
On 2016-04-16 18:23:01 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 09:00:57AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I can think of a number of relatively easy ways to address this:
> > > 1) Just zap (or issue?) all pending flush requests w
Hi,
On 2016-04-16 18:27:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2016-04-16 17:52:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> That's more than a 5X penalty, which seems like it would make the
> >> feature unusable; unless there is an argument that that's an extreme
> >> case that wouldn't be r
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 03:28:23PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-16 18:23:01 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 09:00:57AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > I can think of a number of relatively easy ways to a
I wrote:
> So at this point I'm not sure what to do. I could back out the back-patch
> of 44cd47c1d49655c5, which would mean accepting that 9.2/9.3 are broken
> and will never be fixed for HPPA, as well as any other architectures that
> use the same fallback memory barrier implementation. The lac
On April 16, 2016 6:02:39 PM PDT, Tom Lane wrote:
>I wrote:
>> So at this point I'm not sure what to do. I could back out the
>back-patch
>> of 44cd47c1d49655c5, which would mean accepting that 9.2/9.3 are
>broken
>> and will never be fixed for HPPA, as well as any other architectures
>that
>>
Hi,
Pgbench allows -f and -S combinations together where the doc says that -S
effectively uses the internal select-only script.
Is it okay to assume that -f is disregarded here? Or are they run in
round-robin fashion (although then, how does it know which read-only part
of my script to run?) or s
On 15 April 2016 at 12:45, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I think there are a lot of extensions which create functions which
> could benefit from being declared parallel safe. But how does one go
> about doing that?
>
> create extension xml2;
> select xml_valid(filler),count(*) from pgbench_accounts group
24 matches
Mail list logo
