On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
Does somebody mind me backpatching the missing XLOG_DEBUG ?
ISTM that it is a good idea to have it in REL9_4_STABLE as well.
Regards,
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To
/*
* ALTER TABLE INHERIT
*
* Add a parent to the child's parents. This verifies that all the columns and
* check constraints of the parent appear in the child and that they have the
* same data types and expressions.
*/
static void
ATPrepAddInherit(Relation child_rel)
{
if
Hi,
When compiling with WAL_DEBUG defined, but wal_debug set to off, there's
a lot of DEBUG1 spew like
DEBUG: initialized 1 pages, upto 40/3977E000
DEBUG: initialized 9 pages, upto 40/3979
DEBUG: initialized 1 pages, upto 40/39792000
DEBUG: initialized 1 pages, upto 40/39794000
DEBUG:
On 2015-06-10 PM 01:42, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
Let's assume a table which is partitioned to four portions,
and individual child relations have constraint by hash-value
of its ID field.
tbl_parent
+ tbl_child_0 ... CHECK(hash_func(id) % 4 = 0)
+ tbl_child_1 ...
On 2015-06-10 01:57:22 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
I think I agree with everything after your first sentence. I liked your
specific proposal to split StartupXLOG(), but making broad-appeal
restructuring proposals is hard. I doubt we would get good results by casting
a wide net for restructuring
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Amit Langote langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp
wrote:
Perhaps the qual needs to be pushed all the way down
to the Hash's underlying scan if that makes sense.
And that is a Pandora's box of troubles IMHO unless done in a very careful
manner.
Josh,
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Dmitry, Alexander:
I'm noticing a feature gap for JSONB operators; we have no way to do this:
jsonb_col ? ARRAY['key1','key2','key3']
What documents do you expect to match this operator?
Such syntax can be
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
On 2015-06-10 PM 01:42, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
Let's assume a table which is partitioned to four portions,
and individual child relations have constraint by hash-value
of its ID field.
tbl_parent
+
Hi,
I think I may have found one of the problems, PostgreSQL has on machines
with many NUMA nodes. I am not yet sure what exactly happens on the NUMA
bus, but there seems to be a tipping point at which the spinlock
concurrency wreaks havoc and the performance of the database collapses.
On a
Hello,
Recently we encountered a issue where the disc space is continuously
increasing towards 100%. Then a manual vacuum freed the disc space. But
again it is increasing. When digged more it is found that auto-vacuuming
was not running or it is either stucked/hanged.
Version: 9.1.12
Auto vacuum
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
On 06/09/2015 05:54 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Looking at the documentation what is expected is not a path to a
segment file, but only a segment file name:
On 2015-06-10 11:20:19 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
I was wondering about this in the context of the recent multixact
work, since such configurations could leave you with different SLRU
files on disk which in some versions might change the behaviour in
interesting ways.
Note that trigger a
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 06/08/2015 11:19 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I think Robert and Alvaro also seems to be inclined towards throwing
error for such a case, so let us do that way, but one small point is that
don't you think that similar
On 2015-06-10 PM 05:53, Atri Sharma wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Amit Langote langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp
wrote:
Perhaps the qual needs to be pushed all the way down
to the Hash's underlying scan if that makes sense.
And that is a Pandora's box of troubles IMHO unless done
On 2015-06-10 PM 01:42, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
Let's assume a table which is partitioned to four portions,
and individual child relations have constraint by hash-value
of its ID field.
tbl_parent
+ tbl_child_0 ... CHECK(hash_func(id) % 4 = 0)
+ tbl_child_1 ... CHECK(hash_func(id) %
On 06/10/2015 09:28 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-06-10 09:18:56 -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
On a machine with 8 sockets, 64 cores, Hyperthreaded 128 threads total, a
pgbench -S peaks with 50-60 clients around 85,000 TPS. The throughput then
takes a very sharp dive and reaches around 20,000 TPS
Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes:
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 12:24:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah, my first instinct was to blame ca325941 as well, but I don't think
any of that code executes during init_locale(). Also,
Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:21 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Fujii Masao wrote:
Can't we create
some common function that would be called both here and on ServerLoop?
Agreed. So, what about the attached patch?
No attachment ...
We also have
On 10/06/15 16:05, Andres Freund wrote:
it'll nearly always be beneficial to spin
Trouble is that postgres cannot know if the process holding the lock actually
does run, so if it doesn't, all we're doing is burn cycles and make the problem
worse.
Contrary to that, the kernel does know, so for
On 06/10/2015 10:07 AM, Nils Goroll wrote:
On larger Linux machines, we have been running with spin locks replaced by
generic posix mutexes for years now. I personally haven't look at the code for
ages, but we maintain a patch which pretty much does the same thing still:
Ref:
Jan Wieck j...@wi3ck.info writes:
The attached patch demonstrates that less aggressive spinning and (much)
more often delaying improves the performance on this type of machine.
Hm. One thing worth asking is why the code didn't converge to a good
value of spins_per_delay without help. The
On 2015-06-10 16:12:05 +0200, Nils Goroll wrote:
On 10/06/15 16:05, Andres Freund wrote:
it'll nearly always be beneficial to spin
Trouble is that postgres cannot know if the process holding the lock actually
does run, so if it doesn't, all we're doing is burn cycles and make the
problem
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
Unfortunately there's no portable futex support. That's what stopped us
from adopting them so far. And even futexes can be significantly more
heavyweight under moderate contention than our spinlocks - It's rather
easy to reproduce scenarios where
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 09:18:56AM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
The attached patch demonstrates that less aggressive spinning and
(much) more often delaying improves the performance on this type of
machine. The 8 socket machine in question scales to over 350,000
TPS.
The patch is meant to
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 03:54:59PM -0400, David Steele wrote:
I've certainly had quite the experience as a first-time contributor
working on this patch. Perhaps I bit off more than I should have and I
definitely managed to ruffle a few feathers along the way. I learned a
lot about how the
Hi,
On 2015-06-10 09:54:00 -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7- 8830 @ 2.13GHz
numactl --hardware shows the distance to the attached memory as 10, the
distance to every other node as 21. I interpret that as the machine having
one NUMA bus with all cpu packages
On 2015-06-10 09:18:56 -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
On a machine with 8 sockets, 64 cores, Hyperthreaded 128 threads total, a
pgbench -S peaks with 50-60 clients around 85,000 TPS. The throughput then
takes a very sharp dive and reaches around 20,000 TPS at 120 clients. It
never recovers from
David Rowley david.row...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 10 June 2015 at 02:52, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
David Rowley david.row...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The idea I discussed in the link in item 5 above gets around this
problem, but it's a perhaps more surprise filled implementation
On larger Linux machines, we have been running with spin locks replaced by
generic posix mutexes for years now. I personally haven't look at the code for
ages, but we maintain a patch which pretty much does the same thing still:
Ref:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net
wrote:
On Jun 9, 2015 6:00 AM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi all,
I should have noticed that before, but it
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:21 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Fujii Masao wrote:
Hi,
When the archiver exits, currently reaper() restarts it only while
the postmaster state is PM_RUN. This is OK in 9.4 or before because
the archiver could be running on that state. But in
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:10 PM, David Rowley
david.row...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The attached fixes a small typo in a comment.
Pushed. Thanks!
--
Fujii Masao
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com
On 2015-06-10 17:57:42 +0200, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote:
it turns out, that the code in WalSndWriteData is setting the timestamp of
the replication message just *after* it has been sent out to the client,
thus the sendtime field always reads as zero.
Ugh, what a stupid bug. Thanks!
Andres
--
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-06-10 08:24:23 -0700, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de
wrote:
That doesn't look right to me. Why is this code logging a standby
snapshot for physical
How to use this optimization ?
select *
from table join partitioned_table on (
table.part_id = partitioned_table.id
and hash_func_mod(table.part_id) = hash_func_mod(partitioned_table.id)
)
Hi,
While testing pg_rewind, I got the following error and pg_rewind failed.
$ pg_rewind -D ... --source-server=... -P
ERROR: could not open file base/13243/16384 for reading: No
such file or directory
STATEMENT: SELECT path, begin,
pg_read_binary_file(path, begin, len)
As in 200%+ slower.
Have you tried PTHREAD_MUTEX_ADAPTIVE_NP ?
Yes.
Ok, if this can be validated, we might have a new case now for which my
suggestion would not be helpful. Reviewed, optimized code with short critical
sections and no hotspots by design could indeed be an exception where to
On 2015-06-10 11:51:06 -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
ret = pg_atomic_fetch_sub_u32(buf-state, 1);
if (ret BM_PIN_COUNT_WAITER)
{
pg_atomic_fetch_sub_u32(buf-state, BM_PIN_COUNT_WAITER);
/* XXX: deal with race that another backend has set BM_PIN_COUNT_WAITER
*/
}
There are atomic
Hi Hackers,
it turns out, that the code in WalSndWriteData is setting the timestamp of
the replication message just *after* it has been sent out to the client,
thus the sendtime field always reads as zero.
Attached is a trivial patch to fix this. The physical replication path
already does the
Fujii Masao wrote:
Agreed. The attached patch defines the macro to check whether archiver is
allowed to start up or not, and uses it everywhere except sigusr1_handler.
I made sigusr1_handler use a different condition because only it tries to
start archiver in PM_STARTUP postmaster state and
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:00 , Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net
wrote:
This is an attempt to summarize What I think is now the lone
outstanding jsonb issue.
We need to remove the ambiguity with jsonb_delete() by renaming the
variant that takes a text[] (meaning a path) as the second
On 06/10/2015 10:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-06-10 09:57:17 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
Mine goal isn't that. My goal is to have a consistent backup without
having to shut down the server to take a cold one, or having to manually
juggle the pg_start_backup, etc. commands.
A basebackup
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
I think we should just gank spinlocks asap. The hard part is removing
them from lwlock.c's slow path and the buffer headers imo. After that we
should imo be fine replacing them with lwlocks.
Mmmph. I'm not convinced
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
On 06/10/2015 10:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-06-10 09:57:17 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
Mine goal isn't that. My goal is to have a consistent backup without
having to shut down the server to take a cold one,
On 2015-06-10 13:52:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
Well, not necessarily. If you can write your algorithm in a way that
xadd etc are used, instead of a lock cmpxchg, you're actually never
spinning on x86 as it's
On 06/05/2015 01:51 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 06/05/2015 01:39 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
But I agree that it's not a great contribution to science,
especially since
the index will be applied to the list of elements
This is an attempt to summarize What I think is now the lone outstanding
jsonb issue.
We need to remove the ambiguity with jsonb_delete() by renaming the
variant that takes a text[] (meaning a path) as the second argument to
jsonb_delete_path. That seems uncontroversial.
We need to rename
Robbie Harwood rharw...@redhat.com writes:
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
Robbie,
* Robbie Harwood (rharw...@redhat.com) wrote:
We'd I think also want a new kind of HBA entry (probably something along
the lines of `hostgss` to contrast with `hostssl`), but I'm not sure
what
On 06/10/2015 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
On 06/10/2015 10:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-06-10 09:57:17 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
Mine goal isn't that. My goal is to have a consistent backup without
having
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
In the uncontended case lwlocks are just as fast as spinlocks now, with
the exception of the local tracking array. They're faster if there's
differences with read/write lockers.
If nothing else, the spinlock calls are
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Recently, one of our customers has had a basebackup fail because pg_log
contained files that were 8GB:
FATAL: archive member
On 2015-06-10 09:57:17 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
Mine goal isn't that. My goal is to have a consistent backup without
having to shut down the server to take a cold one, or having to manually
juggle the pg_start_backup, etc. commands.
A basebackup won't necessarily give you a consistent log
On 2015-06-10 13:19:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
I think we should just gank spinlocks asap. The hard part is removing
them from lwlock.c's slow path and the buffer headers imo. After that we
should imo be fine
Hi,
Attached patch fixes the minor issues in pg_rewind. The fixes are
* Remove invalid option character N from the third argument (valid option
string) of getopt_long().
* Use pg_free() or pfree() to free the memory allocated by pg_malloc() or
palloc() instead of always using free().
* Assume
On 06/10/2015 06:08 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
WFM. So the idea is that if json_pointer is implemented as a type, then
we'll have an operator for jsonb - json_pointer?
Right.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
* Remove invalid option character N from the third argument (valid option
string) of getopt_long().
* Use pg_free() or pfree() to free the memory allocated by pg_malloc() or
palloc() instead of always using free().
*
On 2015-06-11 PM 01:15, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have committed the first draft of the 9.5 release notes. You can view
the output here:
http://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-9-5.html
and it will eventually appear here:
I ran into a typo in a comment in setrefs.c. Patch attached.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
diff --git a/src/backend/optimizer/plan/setrefs.c b/src/backend/optimizer/plan/setrefs.c
index a7f65dd..162a52e 100644
--- a/src/backend/optimizer/plan/setrefs.c
+++ b/src/backend/optimizer/plan/setrefs.c
@@
On 11 June 2015 at 16:15, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I have committed the first draft of the 9.5 release notes. You can view
the output here:
http://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-9-5.html
Thanks Bruce.
Would you also be able to mention something about f15821e and
At 2015-06-10 13:22:27 -0400, robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not clear on which of these options you are voting for:
(1) include pg_log in pg_basebackup as we do currently
(2) exclude it
(3) add a switch controlling whether or not it gets excluded
I can live with (3), but I bet most
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I have committed the first draft of the 9.5 release notes. You can view
the output here:
http://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-9-5.html
Thanks for writing the Release notes.
Some comments:
Have pg_basebackup
On 2015/06/10 20:18, Robert Haas wrote:
/*
* ALTER TABLE INHERIT
*
* Add a parent to the child's parents. This verifies that all the columns and
* check constraints of the parent appear in the child and that they have the
* same data types and expressions.
*/
static void
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I have committed the first draft of the 9.5 release notes. You can view
the output here:
http://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-9-5.html
and it will eventually appear here:
On 2015/06/05 6:51, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Etsuro Fujita
fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
Here is a doc patch to add materialized views and foreign tables to
database objects that pg_table_is_visible() can be used with.
Good catch, as usual. Committed.
Thanks
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Shouldn't pg_rewind ignore that failure of operation? If the file is not
found in source server, the file doesn't need to be copied to destination
server obviously. So ISTM that pg_rewind safely can skip copying that
Hello,
I got the following error during DBT-3 benchmark with SF=20.
psql:query21.sql:50: ERROR: invalid memory alloc request size 1073741824
psql:query21.sql:50: ERROR: invalid memory alloc request size 1073741824
It looks to me Hash node tries to 1GB area using palloc0(), but it exceeds
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Or what about removing tablespace_map file at the beginning of
I have committed the first draft of the 9.5 release notes. You can view
the output here:
http://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-9-5.html
and it will eventually appear here:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release.html
I am ready to make suggested adjustments,
69 matches
Mail list logo
