Re: RC1 time? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Oleg Bartunov |
---|---|
Subject | Re: RC1 time? |
Date | |
Msg-id | Pine.GSO.4.33.0201052109380.13547-100000@ra.sai.msu.su Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: RC1 time? ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>) |
Responses |
Re: RC1 time?
("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>)
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.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 5procs memory page disks faults cpur b w avm fre flt re pi po fr sr da0 da1 in sy cs us sy id0 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 2 971 19 0 414788 23940 459 4 4 1 474 615 1 170 454 734 286 0 2 981 20 0 428592 26912 372 3 14 0 433 592 6 182 480 790 296 1 2 972 19 0 458688 30164 318 3 9 0 423 592 3 177 463 787 289 1 2 971 17 0 446848 24196 303 2 4 0 454 0 2 177 463 878 294 1 2 970 18 0 452432 29404 228 1 3 2 324 633 2 184 472 842 305 2 4 940 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@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/ phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
pgsql-hackers by date: