Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Well, we seem to be proof against cache-inval problems now

From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Well, we seem to be proof against cache-inval problems now
Date: 2001-01-05 07:55:23
Message-ID: 3A557DEB.36D789AB@tpf.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> I just finished running the parallel regress tests with inval.c rigged
> to flush the relcache and syscache at every available opportunity,
> that is anytime we could recognize a shared-cache-inval message from
> another backend (see diff below).  This setup gives a whole new universe
> of meaning to the word "slow" --- it took *three full days* to run the
> standard "make check" procedure, including eighteen hours just to do the
> "vacuum template1" part of initdb.  I kid you not.  But it worked.
> Looks like the unexpected-cache-entry-drop class of problems are indeed
> gone.
> 

Great.
Thanks.

Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2001-01-05 10:49:41
Subject: Re: Missing ColLabel tokens
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-01-05 07:39:12
Subject: Re: Re: time + date_part oddness?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group