On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
That's different from our current checkpoint_segments setting. With
checkpoint_segments, the documented formula for calculating the disk usage
is (2 + checkpoint_completion_target) * checkpoint_segments * 16 MB. That's
a lot
Shay Rojansky wrote
The use case would be sending a query which might modify or might not
(e.g.
UPDATE), but we know that the user is uninterested in any result row.
How do you intend to gain this knowledge if the query doesn't structure
itself so that it does or does not return actual rows?
On 02/03/2015 08:17 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
TRAP: FailedAssertion(!(node-spec != SPEC_INSERT || node-arbiterIndex !=
((Oid) 0)), File: nodeModifyTable.c, Line: 1619)
Is that just because of the hack in
searchable version of the release notes.
Would be a wonderful thing if it happened.
Segregating the content by version would help -- finding lots of notes
about version 7 8 when I'm running 9.3/4 helps not at all.
--
Steven Lembark 3646 Flora Pl
This message was caused by a bug in the commitfest app. The bug has been
found and fixed.
Apologies for that one slipping through.
//Magnus
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:21 PM, jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
From nobody Fri Jan 30 18:20:23 2015
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
MIME-Version:
2015-02-04 6:37 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
All,
We recently had a client complain that check_postgres' commitratio
check would alert about relatively unused databases. As it turns
out, the reason for this is because they
I'm very sorry for confused report. The problem found in 9.4.0
and the diagnosis was mistakenly done on master.
9.4.0 has no problem of feedback delay caused by slow xlog
receiving on pg_basebackup mentioned in the previous mail. But
the current master still has this problem.
regards,
At Mon,
Hi
A superfluous '/' in an xref tag is producing an unintended ''
in the Warning box on this page:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/sql-createtablespace.html
Regards
Ian Barwick
--
Ian Barwick http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7
Thank you for your comment.
Sorry for the silly typo in the subject.
Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:12:12 -0500, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote in
2540.1422976...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes:
Most of OID types has reg* OID types. Theses are very convenient
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Let me push max_wal_size and min_wal_size again as our new parameter
names, because:
* does what it says on the tin
* new user friendly
* encourages people to express it in MB, not segments
* very different from the old
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
wrote:
When I clicked on attach thread without having logged in, it took me
to a bad URL. When I clicked on it after having logged in, it
On 02/04/2015 09:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
That's different from our current checkpoint_segments setting. With
checkpoint_segments, the documented formula for calculating the disk usage
is (2 + checkpoint_completion_target) *
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
I had compiled with -O0, but without assertions. I tried now again with -O3.
It's been running for about 10 minutes now, and I haven't seen any errors.
Did you run with an artificially high XID burn rate (i.e. did
On 02/04/2015 06:48 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Anyway, I'm not talking about deriving the GUC, I'm talking about
deriving the WAL level which is currently controlled solely by the
GUC. We do something like this for full-page writes. Even if you in
general have full_page_writes=off, trying to
On 02/03/2015 10:00 AM, David Fetter wrote:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:08:45AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/03/2015 08:55 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I run `make -s -j4 world` on my i7 fairly often, and it is often
the doc build that I wind up waiting for at the end.
I realize this is
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Apologies for the confusion- the client isn't using it to determine if
there's activity. They're using it exactly as it's intended, as I
understand it- to check and see if
On 2/4/15 2:24 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/03/2015 10:00 AM, David Fetter wrote:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:08:45AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/03/2015 08:55 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I run `make -s -j4 world` on my i7 fairly often, and it is often
the doc build that I wind up
On 02/04/2015 12:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Let me push max_wal_size and min_wal_size again as our new parameter
names, because:
* does what it says on the tin
* new user friendly
* encourages people to express it in MB,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
(BTW, why do you not leave a blank line between quoted text and your
responses?)
+1. That vertical space is really helpful, at least to me.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:31 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
(BTW, why do you not leave a blank line between quoted text and your
responses?)
+1. That vertical space is really helpful, at least to me.
Will do if people here are better
On 2/3/15 11:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
Note also that you only need to present the release notes from the
latest stable release branch on the web site, as opposed to
documentation for each branch.
Yeah, JD suggested the same upthread. If we went over
I ran across this function in nbtpage.c:
/*
* _bt_relbuf() -- release a locked buffer.
*
* Lock and pin (refcount) are both dropped.
*/
void
_bt_relbuf(Relation rel, Buffer buf)
{
UnlockReleaseBuffer(buf);
}
Would anyone object to me removing the first parameter (including,
obviously, in
-1. I find it very useful to be able to go back through all the
release notes using grep, and have done so on multiple occasions. It
sounds like this policy would make that harder, and I don't see what
we get out of of it. It doesn't bother me that the SGML documentation
of the release
Disk space isn't the only consideration here; if it were I'd not be
concerned about this. Processing time is an issue, and so is distribution
size, and so is the length of the manual if someone decides to print it
on dead trees. I also live in fear of the day that we hit some hard-to-
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 02/04/2015 12:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Let me push max_wal_size and min_wal_size again as our new
parameter
names, because:
* does what it says
Missed adding pgsql-hackers group while replying.
Regards,
Venkata Balaji N
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Venkata Balaji N nag1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 01/30/2015 04:48 AM, Venkata Balaji N wrote:
I
I applied this patch to REL9_4_STABLE, and I was able to connect to a
foreign database (redshift, actually).
the basic outline of the test is below, names changed to protect my
employment.
create extension if not exists postgres_fdw;
create server redshift_server foreign data wrapper
On 2/4/15 3:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Hmmm, I see your point. I spend a lot of time on AWS and in
container-world, where disk space is a lot more constrained. However,
it probably makes more sense to recommend non-default settings for that
environment, since it requires non-default settings
On Tue, Feb 2, 2015 at 01:06 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
A first (not actually that quick :() look through the patches to see
what actually happened in the last months. I didn't keep up with the
thread.
So, let me get this out of the way: This is the first in-depth
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
I'm not terribly keen on this. If you don't like binworld, how about
world-no-docs?
[ shrug... ] Doesn't bother me particularly.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To
Tom Lane-2 wrote
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI lt;
horiguchi.kyotaro@.co
gt; writes:
The phrase {INDEX | TABLE |..} name seems to me indivisible as
target specification. IMHO, the options for VACUUM and so is
placed *just after* command name, not *before* the target.
If this is right, the syntax
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes:
The phrase {INDEX | TABLE |..} name seems to me indivisible as
target specification. IMHO, the options for VACUUM and so is
placed *just after* command name, not *before* the target.
If this is right, the syntax would be like this.
On 04/02/15 19:02, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Ian Barwick i...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Hi
A superfluous '/' in an xref tag is producing an unintended ''
in the Warning box on this page:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/sql-createtablespace.html
On 2/4/15 6:16 PM, David Steele wrote:
On 2/4/15 3:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Hmmm, I see your point. I spend a lot of time on AWS and in
container-world, where disk space is a lot more constrained. However,
it probably makes more sense to recommend non-default settings for that
environment,
On 02/04/2015 06:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Or maybe use a make variable, like NO_DOC. I think that's preferable to
adding more targets.
Unless we can come up with a new target name that obviously means
world minus docs, the make-variable idea may be the best.
I'm not
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
Hello,
At Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:22:39 +0900, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote
in cahgqgwgudgcmnhzinkd37i+jijdkruecrea1ncrs1mmte3r...@mail.gmail.com
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Hello,
As per discussion, it seems to good with
REINDEX { INDEX | TABLE | etc } name [ ( option [, option ...] ) ]
or
REINDEX { INDEX | TABLE | etc } [ (option [, optoin ...] ) ] name
i.g., the options of reindex(VERBOSE and FORCE) are put at before or
after object name.
Because other
Hello,
At Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:22:39 +0900, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote in
cahgqgwgudgcmnhzinkd37i+jijdkruecrea1ncrs1mmte3r...@mail.gmail.com
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
I'm very sorry for confused report. The problem
Jim Nasby wrote:
Rather than trying to wedge this into a heap page, ISTM it'd be
better to use a fork. Presumably if you're storing regular tuples
that have the essential data from pg_class, pg_attribute (and maybe
pg_type).
Well, three things:
- The information preferably is present in the same
Shay Rojansky wrote:
I'm working on the Npgsql, the .NET driver for PostgreSQL, and am trying to
find a way to execute a query but without fetching any rows. The Execute
message has a maximum result-row count, but zero is documented to mean
fetch all rows.
The use case would be sending a query
On 2015-02-04 12:17:23 +0100, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-02-03 12:26:33 +0100, Shay Rojansky wrote:
find a way to execute a query but without fetching any rows. The Execute
message has a maximum result-row count, but zero is documented to mean
fetch all
Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
On 2/4/15 12:13 PM, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
If you know beforehand the query might generate more than one row (SELECT)
yet you also know that you are not interested in those, then maxrows=1
is best; then again, modifying the query to include a LIMIT 1 is even
better,
On 2/4/15 12:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-02-04 12:23:51 +0100, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
On 2/4/15 12:13 PM, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
If you know beforehand the query might generate more than one row (SELECT)
yet you also know that you are not interested in those, then maxrows=1
is
On 2/4/15 12:36 PM, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
This seems to be a common pattern, and I think it's a *huge* mistake
to specify maxrows=1 and/or ignore rows after the first one in the
driver layer. If the user says give me the only row returned by
I guess it depends
On 02/03/2015 02:45 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
I think there are more similar leaks nearby. After the first hunk, there's
another if-check with return false that also leaks mallocedval. Right
after the two other
Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-02-03 12:26:33 +0100, Shay Rojansky wrote:
find a way to execute a query but without fetching any rows. The Execute
message has a maximum result-row count, but zero is documented to mean
fetch all rows.
Is this really a relevant optimization? If the user doesn't
On 2/4/15 12:13 PM, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
If you know beforehand the query might generate more than one row (SELECT)
yet you also know that you are not interested in those, then maxrows=1
is best; then again, modifying the query to include a LIMIT 1 is even
better, in which case maxrows
On 2015-02-04 12:25:04 +0100, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
On 2/4/15 12:17 PM, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-02-03 12:26:33 +0100, Shay Rojansky wrote:
find a way to execute a query but without fetching any rows. The Execute
message has a maximum result-row count, but
On 2015-02-04 12:23:51 +0100, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
On 2/4/15 12:13 PM, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
If you know beforehand the query might generate more than one row (SELECT)
yet you also know that you are not interested in those, then maxrows=1
is best; then again, modifying the query to
On 2/4/15 12:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-02-04 12:25:04 +0100, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
On 2/4/15 12:17 PM, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
I believe he's talking about the network protocol of postgreSQL, not
about query optimisation (as you do).
I don't believe so.
Did you read the
Robert Haas wrote:
I wrote:
src, dst and ctx are created respectively from mbuf_create_from_data,
mbuf_create and pgp_init which never return NULL and they are palloc'd
all the time. I think that we could simplify things with the patch
attached, note that I added an assertion for correctness
While looking at the memory leaks in ecpg that Coverity warned about and
Michael just fixed, I started wondering if the code is ever used.
The leaks were in the code that takes a host variable, and converts it
into a string for sending to the server as a query parameter. In
particular, it was
* Guillaume Lelarge (guilla...@lelarge.info) wrote:
2015-02-04 6:37 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
No, somebody should fix check_postgres to count rollbacks as well as
commits as activity (as they obviously are).
Well, actually, no. This
On 2015-02-03 11:00:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I think these days there's no reason for the split between the archive
and hot_standby wal levels. The split was made out of volume and
stability concerns. I think we
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
I wrote:
src, dst and ctx are created respectively from mbuf_create_from_data,
mbuf_create and pgp_init which never return NULL and they are palloc'd
all the time. I think that we could
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Apologies for the confusion- the client isn't using it to determine if
there's activity. They're using it exactly as it's intended, as I
understand it- to check and see if the number of rollbacks is
signifigant compared
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2015-02-03 11:00:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Could we, maybe, even make it a derived value rather than one that is
explicitly configured? Like, if you set max_wal_senders0, you
automatically get
wal_level=hot_standby?
Our experience with
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
While looking at the memory leaks in ecpg that Coverity warned about and
Michael just fixed, I started wondering if the code is ever used.
Michael Meskes would be the authority on that question, so I've cc'd
him to make sure he notices this
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com writes:
On 2/3/15 5:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com writes:
VACUUM puts the options before the table name, so ISTM it'd be best to
keep that with REINDEX. Either
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Ian Barwick i...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Hi
A superfluous '/' in an xref tag is producing an unintended ''
in the Warning box on this page:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/sql-createtablespace.html
I found that logicaldecoding.sgml also
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
I'm very sorry for confused report. The problem found in 9.4.0
and the diagnosis was mistakenly done on master.
9.4.0 has no problem of feedback delay caused by slow xlog
receiving on pg_basebackup
On 2/4/15 12:17 PM, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-02-03 12:26:33 +0100, Shay Rojansky wrote:
find a way to execute a query but without fetching any rows. The Execute
message has a maximum result-row count, but zero is documented to mean
fetch all rows.
Is this
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I think my vote is to maintain the status quo. What you're basically
proposing to do is ship the system half-configured for replication,
and I don't see the point of that.
Not only replication, but also hot backup.
On 02/04/2015 04:49 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I ran across this function in nbtpage.c:
/*
* _bt_relbuf() -- release a locked buffer.
*
* Lock and pin (refcount) are both dropped.
*/
void
_bt_relbuf(Relation rel, Buffer buf)
{
UnlockReleaseBuffer(buf);
}
Would anyone object to me
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
... (there's a call to _bt_relbuf in contrib/pgstattuple, but it
shouldn't really be used in 3rd party extensions)
Meh. I wouldn't say that. I agree that the coding in pgstat_btree_page
pretty much sucks, but on grounds of lack of
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 02/04/2015 04:49 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Would anyone object to me removing the first parameter
(including, obviously, in all references in our code tree)?
No objection, although I have to wonder why bother?
Because I ran across it
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com writes:
I ran across this function in nbtpage.c:
/*
* _bt_relbuf() -- release a locked buffer.
*
* Lock and pin (refcount) are both dropped.
*/
void
_bt_relbuf(Relation rel, Buffer buf)
{
UnlockReleaseBuffer(buf);
}
Would anyone object to me
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On 2/4/15 2:24 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/03/2015 10:00 AM, David Fetter wrote:
On 02/03/2015 08:55 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I realize this is slightly OT, but I wonder if it might be worth having
targets that build and install everything but the
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2015-01-19 17:16:11 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Here's a new version. Andres mentioned previously that he thought it
would be a good idea to commit the addition of
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
I had compiled with -O0, but without assertions. I tried now again with -O3.
It's been running for about 10 minutes now, and I haven't seen
71 matches
Mail list logo
