Re: Unresolved Win32 bug reports

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Unresolved Win32 bug reports
Date: 2006-04-20 17:17:07
Message-ID: 20060420171707.GD49405@pervasive.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Here's one to add to the list: running pgbench with a moderately heavy
load on an SMP box likes to trigger a state where the database (or
pgbench) just stops doing work (CPU usage drops to nothing, as does disk
activity). I've been able to repro this on 2 Intel boxes (one a 2 way,
one a 4 way), and a dual Opteron, all running the latest windows binary.
A 50 connection test running 1000 transactions is pretty much ensured to
fail.

I've been unable to produce the same behavior on a single-proc machine.

Please let me know if there's any more info that would be helpful.

On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 07:02:01AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Folks, my mailbox is filling with unresolved Win32 bug reports,
> specifically:
>
> integer division
> shared memory
> statistics collector
> rename
> fsync
>
> I have put the emails at the bottom of the patches_hold queue:
>
> http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
> + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>

--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-04-20 17:25:15 Re: Unresolved Win32 bug reports
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-04-20 17:02:22 Re: Checking assumptions