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:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Some interesting results from tweaking spinlocks
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Some interesting results from tweaking spinlocks