On 17 January 2013 03:02, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
Rebased patch attached. No significant changes.
Jeff, can you summarise/collate why we're doing this, what concerns it
raises and how you've dealt with them? That will help decide whether
to commit.
Thanks
--
Simon Riggs
On Jan 17, 2013 8:15 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen a...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
At 2013-01-17 16:05:05 +0900, michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it really necessary to create a new commit fest just to move the
items? Marking the patches that are considered as being too late for
9.3 should be
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 17 January 2013 03:02, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
Rebased patch attached. No significant changes.
Jeff, can you summarise/collate why we're doing this, what concerns it
raises and how you've dealt with
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Pavan Deolasee
pavan.deola...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen a...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
At 2013-01-16 02:07:29 -0500, t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed, we've totally lost control of
the CF
At 2013-01-17 08:41:37 +, si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Jeff, can you summarise/collate why we're doing this, what concerns it
raises and how you've dealt with them?
Since I was just looking at the original patch and discussion, and since
Pavan has posted an excerpt from one objection to
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org wrote:
This might be way more than we want to do, but there is an article
that describes some techniques for doing what seems to be missing
(AIUI):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163996.aspx
Even this would be
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen a...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
There was considerable discussion after this (accessible through the
archives link above), which I won't attempt to summarise.
I thought Robert made those comments after considerable discussions on
Jeff's
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org wrote:
This might be way more than we want to do, but there is an article
that describes some techniques for doing what seems to be missing
(AIUI):
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org wrote:
This might be way more than we want to do, but there is an article
that
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
- adds ddl_command_trace and ddl_command_end events
- causes those events to be called not only for actual SQL commands
but also for things that happen, at present, to go through the same
code path
- adds additional magic variables to PL/pgsql to
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Karl O. Pinc k...@meme.com wrote:
On 12/13/2012 11:02:56 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Karl O. Pinc k...@meme.com wrote:
Sorry to be so persnickety, and unhelpful until now.
It seemed like it should be doable, but something
On 2013-01-17 01:38:31 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
But having said that ... are we sure this code is not actually broken?
ISTM that if we dare not interrupt for fear of confusing OpenSSL, we
cannot safely attempt to send an error message to the client either;
but ereport(FATAL) will try exactly
On 2013-01-17 13:47:41 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Hi all,
There is a strange bug with the latest master head (commit 7fcbf6a).
When the WAL stream with a master is cut on a slave, slave returns a FATAL
(well normal...), but then enters in recovery process and automatically
promotes.
Dne 17.01.2013 10:36, Magnus Hagander napsal:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org
wrote:
This might be way more than we want to do, but there is an
article
that describes some techniques for doing what seems to be missing
(AIUI):
Dne 17.01.2013 11:16, Magnus Hagander napsal:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Magnus Hagander
mag...@hagander.net wrote:
We have committed platform-specific features before, but generally
only when it's not *possible* to do
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Where I really need someone to hit me upside the head with a
clue-stick is the code I added to the bottom of RelationBuildDesc()
in relcache.c. The idea is that on first access to an unlogged MV,
to detect that the heap has
On 01/17/2013 06:11 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Dne 17.01.2013 11:16, Magnus Hagander napsal:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Magnus Hagander
mag...@hagander.net wrote:
We have committed platform-specific features before, but
On 2013-01-17 13:47:41 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Hi all,
There is a strange bug with the latest master head (commit 7fcbf6a).
When the WAL stream with a master is cut on a slave, slave returns a FATAL
(well normal...), but then enters in recovery process and automatically
promotes.
On 01/17/2013 04:43 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Jan 17, 2013 8:15 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen a...@2ndquadrant.com
mailto:a...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
At 2013-01-17 16:05:05 +0900, michael.paqu...@gmail.com
mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it really necessary to create a new
On 01/17/2013 06:04 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
The problem is I have access to absolutely no Windows machines,
not mentioning the development tools (and that I have no clue about it).
I vaguely remember there were people on this list doing Windows
development
on a virtual machine or something.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 01/17/2013 06:04 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
The problem is I have access to absolutely no Windows machines,
not mentioning the development tools (and that I have no clue about it).
I vaguely remember there were
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 01/17/2013 06:04 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
The problem is I have access to absolutely no Windows machines,
not mentioning the development tools (and that I have no clue about it).
I vaguely remember there were
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Erik Rijkers e...@xs4all.nl wrote:
That would make such a truncation less frequent, and after all a truncated
display is not
particular useful.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 02:03:20PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
So +1 for changing
Greetings,
We've come across this rather annoying error happening during our
builds:
ERROR: could not create directory pg_tblspc/25120/PG_9.3_201212081/231253:
File exists
It turns out that this is coming from copydir() when called by
createdb() during a CREATE DATABASE .. FROM
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Pavan Deolasee
pavan.deola...@gmail.com wrote:
May be you've already addressed that concern with the proven
performance numbers, but I'm not sure.
It would be nice to hear what Heikki's reasons were for adding
PD_ALL_VISIBLE in the first place.
Jeff's approach
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I've moved all pending patches from 2012-11 to 2013-01. I'll go through and
poke them for aliveness and start chasing things up; in the mean time, any
chance of closing 2012-11?
Done.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
I'd prefer to leave the .partial suffix in place, as the segment really
isn't complete. It doesn't make a difference when you recover to the latest
timeline, but if you have a more complicated scenario with
On 17.01.2013 16:56, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
I'd prefer to leave the .partial suffix in place, as the segment really
isn't complete. It doesn't make a difference when you recover to the latest
timeline, but if you
On 17.01.2013 16:53, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Pavan Deolasee
pavan.deola...@gmail.com wrote:
May be you've already addressed that concern with the proven
performance numbers, but I'm not sure.
It would be nice to hear what Heikki's reasons were for adding
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
The scenario I described is that you screwed up your failover environment,
and end up with a split-brain situation by accident. The DBA certainly needs
to be involved to recover from that.
OK, I agree, but I
On 17.01.2013 15:05, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-01-17 13:47:41 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
I think that bug has been introduced by commit 7fcbf6a.
Before splitting xlog reading as a separate facility things worked
correctly.
There are also no delay problems before this commit.
Ok, my
Pavan Deolasee pavan.deola...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
ISTM that if we dare not interrupt for fear of confusing OpenSSL, we
cannot safely attempt to send an error message to the client either;
but ereport(FATAL) will try exactly
On 2013-01-17 17:18:14 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 17.01.2013 15:05, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-01-17 13:47:41 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
I think that bug has been introduced by commit 7fcbf6a.
Before splitting xlog reading as a separate facility things worked
correctly.
There
On 2013-01-17 16:23:44 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-01-17 17:18:14 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 17.01.2013 15:05, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-01-17 13:47:41 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
I think that bug has been introduced by commit 7fcbf6a.
Before splitting xlog reading
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
It turns out that createdb() currently only takes an AccessShareLock
on pg_tablespace when scanning it with SnapshotNow, making it possible
for a concurrent process to make some uninteresting modification to a
tablespace (such as an ACL change)
On 2013-01-17 10:19:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Pavan Deolasee pavan.deola...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
ISTM that if we dare not interrupt for fear of confusing OpenSSL, we
cannot safely attempt to send an error message to the
On 16 January 2013 17:25, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
On 16 January 2013 17:20, Kevin Grittner kgri...@mail.com wrote:
Thom Brown wrote:
Some weirdness:
postgres=# CREATE VIEW v_test2 AS SELECT 1 moo;
CREATE VIEW
postgres=# CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW mv_test2 AS SELECT moo, 2*moo
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Now, if that's what it takes, I'll spend time on it. In which exact
order do you want to be reviewing and applying that series of patches?
Let's agree on which things we even want to do first. Here's my take:
-
On 2013-01-17 11:15:24 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
As a further example, suppose that in 9.4 (or 9.17) we add a command
DROP TABLES IN SCHEMA fred WHERE name LIKE 'bob%'. Well, the
logging trigger still just works (because it's only writing the
statement, without caring about its contents).
On 17.01.2013 17:42, Andres Freund wrote:
Ok, the attached patch seems to fix a) and b). c) above is bogus, as
explained in a comment in the patch. I also noticed that the TLI check
didn't mark the last source as failed.
This looks fragile:
/*
On 2013-01-17 18:33:42 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 17.01.2013 17:42, Andres Freund wrote:
Ok, the attached patch seems to fix a) and b). c) above is bogus, as
explained in a comment in the patch. I also noticed that the TLI check
didn't mark the last source as failed.
This looks
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 07:09:31PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have received several earnest requests over the years for LaTeX
'longtable' output, and I have just implemented it based on a sample
LaTeX longtable output file.
I have called it 'latex-longtable' and implemented all the
On 17.01.2013 18:42, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-01-17 18:33:42 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 17.01.2013 17:42, Andres Freund wrote:
Ok, the attached patch seems to fix a) and b). c) above is bogus, as
explained in a comment in the patch. I also noticed that the TLI check
didn't mark
On 2013-01-17 18:50:35 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 17.01.2013 18:42, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-01-17 18:33:42 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 17.01.2013 17:42, Andres Freund wrote:
Ok, the attached patch seems to fix a) and b). c) above is bogus, as
explained in a comment in
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
- adds ddl_command_trace and ddl_command_end events
I think ddl_command_end is OK and I'm willing to commit that if
extracted as its own patch. I think ddl_command_trace is unnecessary
syntactic sugar.
Ok. Will prepare a non controversial patch for
On 17.01.2013 18:55, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-01-17 18:50:35 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I was thinking of the attached. As long as we check for
CheckForStandbyTrigger() after the record == NULL check, we won't perform
extra stat() calls on successful reads, only when we're polling
On 2013-01-17 13:47:41 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Slave does not try anymore to reconnect to master with messages of the type:
FATAL: could not connect to the primary server
I also noticed that there is some delay until modifications on master are
visible on slave.
I think that bug has
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Ugh. Still another problem with non-MVCC catalog scans.
Indeed.
It seems that the only thing we actually use from each tuple is the OID.
Yes, that's true.
So there are other ways to fix it, of which probably the minimum-change
one is to keep a list
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-01-17 13:47:41 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Slave does not try anymore to reconnect to master with messages of the type:
FATAL: could not connect to the primary server
I also noticed that there is some
On 2013-01-18 03:05:47 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-01-17 13:47:41 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Slave does not try anymore to reconnect to master with messages of the
type:
FATAL: could not connect to the
Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 8 December 2012 14:41, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Is anybody planning to work on this? There hasn't been any activity
since the beginning of the CF and it doesn't look like there is much
work left?
I took another look at this.
On 11/04/2012 07:22 PM, Qi Huang wrote:
Dear hackers Sorry for not replying the patch review. I didn't see the
review until recently as my mail box is full of Postgres mails and I didn't
notice the one for me, my mail box configuration problem. I am still kind
of busy with my
On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 15:25 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
Now that I look at the patch, I wonder if there is another fundamental
issue with the patch. Since the patch removes WAL logging for the VM
set operation, this can happen:
Thank you. I think I was confused by this comment here:
When we
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
[ thinks for a bit... ] Ugh, no, because the *other* risk you've got
here is not seeing a row at all, which would be really bad.
I'm not sure that I see how that could happen..? I agree that it'd be
really bad
On 17 January 2013 18:22, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Applied with some changes:
Thank you. That feedback is useful.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On 2013-01-17 13:46:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Or maybe we should just write this off as a case we can't realistically
fix before we have MVCC catalog scans. It seems that any other fix is
going to be hopelessly ugly.
ISTM we could just use a MVCC snapshot in this specific case?
Andres
--
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
The case where you see a tuple twice is if an update drops a new version
of a row beyond your seqscan, and then commits before you get to the new
version. But if it drops the new version of the row *behind* your
seqscan, and then commits before you get
On 17 January 2013 18:32, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 11/04/2012 07:22 PM, Qi Huang wrote:
Dear hackers Sorry for not replying the patch review. I didn't see the
review until recently as my mail box is full of Postgres mails and I didn't
notice the one for me, my mail box
Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hi,
attached is a patch that improves performance when dropping multiple
tables within a transaction. Instead of scanning the shared buffers for
each table separately, the patch removes this and evicts all the tables
in a single pass through shared buffers.
Made some
you.
New patch attached with simple WAL logging.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
rm-pd-all-visible-20130117.patch.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Or maybe we should just write this off as a case we can't realistically
fix before we have MVCC catalog scans. It seems that any other fix is
going to be hopelessly ugly.
I feel like we should be able to do
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Made some tweaks and pushed (added comments to new functions, ensure
that we never try to palloc(0), renamed DropRelFileNodeAllBuffers to
plural, made the use bsearch logic a bit simpler).
FWIW, there's nothing particularly wrong with palloc(0)
On 17 January 2013 16:15, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
As a further example, suppose that in 9.4 (or 9.17) we add a command
DROP TABLES IN SCHEMA fred WHERE name LIKE 'bob%'. Well, the
logging trigger still just works (because it's only writing the
statement, without caring about
Robert Haas escribió:
Actually, I'm really glad to see all the work you've done to improve
the way that some of these scenarios work and eliminate various bugs
and other surprising failure modes over the last couple of months.
It's great stuff.
+1
--
Álvaro Herrera
I wrote:
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
I feel like we should be able to do better than what we have now, at
least. Using ShareLock prevented the specific case that we were
experiencing and is therefore MUCH better (for us, anyway) than
released versions where we ran into the error
On 17.01.2013 20:08, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-01-18 03:05:47 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
I encountered the problem that the timeline switch is not performed expectedly.
I set up one master, one standby and one cascade standby. All the servers
share the archive directory. restore_command is
On 17 January 2013 15:14, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 17.01.2013 16:53, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Pavan Deolasee
pavan.deola...@gmail.com wrote:
May be you've already addressed that concern with the proven
performance numbers, but I'm not
On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 17:14 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I don't remember if I ever actually tested that
though. Maybe I was worrying about nothing and hitting the VM page on
every update is ok.
I tried, but was unable to show really anything at all, even without
keeping the VM page
So I can't see this going anywhere for 9.3. I've moved it to CF1 of
9.4 marked Waiting on Author
Agreed. I wish I'd noticed that it got lost earlier.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make
Hi Jeff
2012/4/19 Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com:
On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 01:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
(...)
This is just handwaving of course. I think some digging in the
spatial-join literature would likely find ideas better than any of
these.
I will look in some more detail. The merge-like
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 17 January 2013 16:15, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
It pains me that I've evidently failed to communicate this concept
clearly despite a year or more of trying. Does that make sense? Is
there some way I can make this more clear? The
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Ok. Will prepare a non controversial patch for ddl_command_end.
Thanks. I will make a forceful effort to review that in a timely
fashion when it's posted.
I think this is a bad idea, not only because, as I said
2013/1/16 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
This patch adds sepgsql the feature of name qualified creation label.
Background, on creation of a certain database object, sepgsql assigns
a default security label according
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Goal: Every time an ALTER command is used on object *that actually
exists*, we will call some user-defined function and pass the object
type, the OID of the object, and some details about what sort of
alteration the user has requested.
Ok, in current
Hi,
While checking whether I could reproduce the replication delay reported
by Michael Paquier I found this very nice tidbit:
In a pretty trivial replication setup of only streaming replication I
can currently easily reproduce this:
standby# BEGIN;SELECT * FROM foo;
BEGIN
id | data
On 17.01.2013 21:57, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 17.01.2013 20:08, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-01-18 03:05:47 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
I encountered the problem that the timeline switch is not performed
expectedly.
I set up one master, one standby and one cascade standby. All the
servers
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
I have to completely disagree with that. If we don't want PostgreSQL
to soon subside into an unfixable morass, as I think Brooks puts it,
we must *not* simply patch things in a way that expediently provides
an approximation of some desired feature. We have
Kohei KaiGai escribió:
This attached patch is the rebased one towards the latest master branch.
Great, thanks. I played with it a bit and it looks almost done to me.
The only issue I can find is that it lets you rename an aggregate by
using ALTER FUNCTION, which is supposed to be forbidden.
On 2013-01-17 23:49:22 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 17.01.2013 21:57, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 17.01.2013 20:08, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-01-18 03:05:47 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
I encountered the problem that the timeline switch is not performed
expectedly.
I set up one
On 17 January 2013 20:24, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 17 January 2013 16:15, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
It pains me that I've evidently failed to communicate this concept
clearly despite a year or more of trying. Does that make
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Let me try to give a concrete example of how I think another firing
point could be made to work along the lines I'm suggesting.
[ snip description of how an event trigger might safely be fired just
after identification and locking of the target object
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
I think that we're not realistically going to be able to introduce
event triggers in very many of the places we'd like to have them
without first doing a lot of fundamental refactoring.
We're only talking
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 17 January 2013 20:24, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
My comments were in response to this
I don't really agree with that. I think the point is to expose what
the system is doing to the DBA. I'm OK with exposing the fact that
creating a
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Well, that's already a problem, because as Robert keeps saying, what
goes through utility.c and what doesn't is pretty random right at the
moment, and we shouldn't expose that behavior to users for fear of not
being able to change it later.
It didn't feel
On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 19:58 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
Presumably we remember the state of the VM so we can skip the re-visit
after every write?
That was not a part of my patch, although I remember that you mentioned
that previously and I thought it could be a good way to mitigate a
problem if
On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 09:53 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
The main question in my mind is whether
there are any negative consequences to holding a VM buffer pin for
that long without interruption. The usual consideration - namely,
blocking vacuum - doesn't apply here because vacuum does not take
On 2013-01-17 22:46:21 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
While checking whether I could reproduce the replication delay reported
by Michael Paquier I found this very nice tidbit:
In a pretty trivial replication setup of only streaming replication I
can currently easily reproduce this:
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Well, that's already a problem, because as Robert keeps saying, what
goes through utility.c and what doesn't is pretty random right at the
moment, and we shouldn't expose that behavior to users for fear of not
On 2013-01-17 23:56:16 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-01-17 22:46:21 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
^
Note the conflicting locks held on relation foo by 28048 and 28068.
I don't immediately know which patch to blame here? Looks a bit like
broken fastpath locking, but I
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:05 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
I encountered the problem that the timeline switch is not performed
expectedly.
I set up one master, one standby and one cascade standby. All the servers
share the archive directory. restore_command is specified in the
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
This seems to provide a reasonably principled
argument why we might want to fix this case with a localized use of an
MVCC scan before we have such a fix globally.
I had discussed that idea a bit with Andres on IRC and my only concern
was if there's some
On 2013-01-18 08:24:31 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:05 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
I encountered the problem that the timeline switch is not performed
expectedly.
I set up one master, one standby and one cascade standby. All the servers
share
On 17.1.2013 20:19, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I'm curious -- why would you drop tables in groups of 100 instead of
just doing the 100,000 in a single transaction? Maybe that's faster
now, because you'd do a single scan of the buffer pool instead of 1000?
(I'm assuming that in groups of means
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
This seems to provide a reasonably principled
argument why we might want to fix this case with a localized use of an
MVCC scan before we have such a fix globally.
I had discussed that idea a bit with Andres on
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
Can you reproduce that one with 7fcbf6a^ (i.e before xlogreader got
split off?).
Yes, it is reproducible before the xlog reader split.
Just an additional report, the master jumps correctly to the new timeline.
The
On 2013-01-18 08:24:31 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:05 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
I encountered the problem that the timeline switch is not performed
expectedly.
I set up one master, one standby and one cascade standby. All the servers
share
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 01/17/2013 06:04 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
The problem is I have access to absolutely no Windows machines,
not mentioning the development tools (and that I have no clue about it).
I vaguely remember there were
I have adjusted this patch a little bit to take care of the review
issues, along with just doing a bit of review myself.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Will Leinweber w...@heroku.com wrote:
Thanks for the reviews and comments. Responses inline:
.
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Abhijit
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Goal: Every time an ALTER command is used on object *that actually
exists*, we will call some user-defined function and pass the object
type, the OID of the object, and
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
