On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 23:52 -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
> Jignesh Shah wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >> I could have sworn we'd refactored that to something like
> >>bool ThereAreAtLeastNActiveBackends(int n)
> >> which could drop out of the loop as soon
Jignesh Shah wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I could have sworn we'd refactored that to something like
bool ThereAreAtLeastNActiveBackends(int n)
which could drop out of the loop as soon as it'd established what we
really need to know...I'd suggest that we just
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Smith writes:
>> And the expensive part of the overhead beyond the delay itself is
>> CountActiveBackends(), which iterates over the entire procArray
>> structure.
>
> I could have sworn we'd refactored that to something like
> bool Th
Greg Smith writes:
> And the expensive part of the overhead beyond the delay itself is
> CountActiveBackends(), which iterates over the entire procArray
> structure.
I could have sworn we'd refactored that to something like
bool ThereAreAtLeastNActiveBackends(int n)
which could drop out
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Jignesh Shah wrote:
>>
>> The commit_siblings = 5 basically checks that it sleeps only when that
>> many backends are active. This I think is a very expensive check and I
>> would rather make commit_siblings=0 (which the current code does not
>>
Jignesh Shah wrote:
The commit_siblings = 5 basically checks that it sleeps only when that
many backends are active. This I think is a very expensive check and I
would rather make commit_siblings=0 (which the current code does not
support.. it only supports minimum of 1)
I just posted a message
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Rob Wultsch wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Jignesh Shah wrote:
>> The commit_siblings = 5 basically checks that it sleeps only when that
>> many backends are active. This I think is a very expensive check and I
>> would rather make commit_siblings=0 (whi
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Jignesh Shah wrote:
> The commit_siblings = 5 basically checks that it sleeps only when that
> many backends are active. This I think is a very expensive check and I
> would rather make commit_siblings=0 (which the current code does not
> support.. it only supports
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Rob Wultsch wrote:
> Manual:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/runtime-config-wal.html#RUNTIME-CONFIG-WAL-SETTINGS
> Recent discussion:
> http://www.facebook.com/notes/mysql-at-facebook/group-commit-in-postgresql/465781235932
>
> It is my understanding th
