Re: RC1 time?

From: Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>
To: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RC1 time?
Date: 2002-01-05 18:11:13
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.33.0201052109380.13547-100000@ra.sai.msu.su
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > >> Aside from the lwlock business, Karel seems to be seeing some problem
> > >> in to_timestamp/to_date.
> >
> > > I thought Karel sent in a to_date patch yesterday that you applied. Was
> > > there another issue?
> >
> > Yes. He reported something that looked a lot like a DST boundary
> > problem, except it wasn't on a DST boundary date. Thomas thought it
> > might be a consequence of the timestamp-vs-timestamptz change from
> > 7.1 to 7.2. See http://fts.postgresql.org/db/mw/msg.html?mid=1345390
> >
> > (BTW, is anyone else noticing that fts.postgresql.org is missing an
> > awful lot of traffic? For example, I can't get it to show Thomas'
> > comment on the above-mentioned thread; and that is *VERY* far from
> > being its only omission lately.)
>
> We just moved it from the old server (that I have to shut down) to the new
> one at Rackspace ... the one thing I have to do over the next short period
> of time is to spring for a memory upgrade on that machine though, as
> 512Meg just doesn't cut it :(

I see on db.postgresql.org

> vmstat -w 5
procs memory page disks faults cpu
r b w avm fre flt re pi po fr sr da0 da1 in sy cs us sy id
0 17 0 471224 28184 369 3 4 2 325 334 0 0 331 401 182 29 2 69

0 19 0 414556 19272 644 1 1 0 546 0 0 172 461 823 290 1 2 97
1 19 0 414788 23940 459 4 4 1 474 615 1 170 454 734 286 0 2 98
1 20 0 428592 26912 372 3 14 0 433 592 6 182 480 790 296 1 2 97
2 19 0 458688 30164 318 3 9 0 423 592 3 177 463 787 289 1 2 97
1 17 0 446848 24196 303 2 4 0 454 0 2 177 463 878 294 1 2 97
0 18 0 452432 29404 228 1 3 2 324 633 2 184 472 842 305 2 4 94
0 19 0 449724 21860 200 14 6 0 508 0 1 188 473 702 283 0 2 98

disk activity is very bad, probably not balanced. I catch a moment
when fts.postgresql.org was slow.

>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>

Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2002-01-05 18:13:16 Re: Some interesting results from tweaking spinlocks
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2002-01-05 17:54:29 Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem