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

Re: 7.4RC1 tag'd, branched and bundled ...

From: Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
To: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Subject: Re: 7.4RC1 tag'd, branched and bundled ...
Date: 2003-11-04 16:35:42
Message-ID: 3FA7D55E.7090209@bigfoot.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Jan Wieck wrote:
> Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> 
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is in the last Tom's patch about Vacuum sleep between pages  ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> that won't be in v7.4, to the best of my knowledge ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Definitely not.  It's a very experimental patch.
>>
>>
>> I not agree, is an experimental patch that introduce just
>> a delay, you now it better than me, and this delay can be
>> shipped with a default value 0.
>> Alias an experimental feature that can be disabled.
> 
> 
> Something that knowingly introduces portability issues and platform 
> dependant behaviour is absolutely inacceptable this late in the release 
> cycle where we already have a significant number of platform reports. 
> Configurable or not doesn't matter.

I see your point, anyway we'll see on the road how much people that know 
the existence of that patch will have in production a 7.4 + the patch.
May be an User Survey will be usefull ?
I spoke for my reality where with postgres we manage a service that
must be up and running 24/24 h 7/7 d.
( http://www.myopensky.com/os/OSwork.html )
I'm really stressed by the peoples that manage the service about
to do an Oracle migration, and the argumentation is always about the 
vacuum procedure that push down the db performances.

>>
>> I think that we are going to see a lot of 7.4 installation
>> with that patch applied.
> 
> 
> We are using usleep() and other equally risky functionality here to 
> quickly get something hooked together that confirms one theory or 
> another. We explicitly discourage people from attempting to squeeze this 
> sort of theory evaluation code into production installations.

I agree in general with you for these "general" arguments, but here we 
are talking about to introduce a sleep ( removable by guc ) or not! What 
about the hash refactoring introduced with 7.4? Are you going to
discourage people to use the hash?



Regards
Gaetano Mendola











In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-11-04 16:40:45
Subject: Re: equal() perf tweak
Previous:From: Matthew T. O'ConnorDate: 2003-11-04 16:30:40
Subject: Re: Experimental patch for inter-page delay in VACUUM

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