On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Assuming the command in
question can be stuffed inside a function, the most you're gaining is
a little notational convenience
I can answer that one (why a full-blown mechanism for a notational convenience).
It has
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tis, 2011-12-13 at 08:44 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Just because all our languages are Turing-complete doesn't mean they
are all equally
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Peter van Hardenberg p...@pvh.ca wrote:
PL/V8 is fast, it's sandboxed, and while it doesn't provide GIN or
GIST operators out of the box, maybe those could be motivated by its
inclusion.
I also feel that a big problem with JSON as a data type is that there
is
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
The trouble with using JSON.parse() as a validator is that it's probably
doing way too much work. PLV8 is cool, and I keep trying to get enough time
to work on it more, but I don't think it's a substitute for a JSON type
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Alexander Shulgin a...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
The JDBC driver is special in that it intentionally does not use libpq.
Given every other binding (think Ruby, Python, Perl, Tcl, etc.) does use
libpq, it makes perfect sense to me to make the syntax compatible
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Alexander Shulgin
a...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Alexander Shulgin's message of Sat Nov 26 22:07:21 +0200 2011:
So how about this:
postgresql:ssl://user:pw@host:port/dbname?sslmode=...
The postgresql:ssl:// designator would assume
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
Reviving a thread that has hit its second birthday:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-11/msg00024.php
In our case not being able
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun nov 14 15:56:43 -0300 2011:
Well, it looks to me like there are three different places that
Reviving a thread that has hit its second birthday:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-11/msg00024.php
In our case not being able to restart Postgres when it has been taken
down in the middle of a base backup is starting to manifest as a
serious source of downtime: basically, any
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Edward Muller edw...@heroku.com wrote:
Looking for comments ...
https://gist.github.com/be937d3a7a5323c73b6e
We'd like to get this, or something like it, into 9.2
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Kevin
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Nikhil Sontakke nikkh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
But if it's deemed to be a
problem, I want to see a solution that's actually watertight.)
After Daniel's hunch about pg_dump barfing due to such leftover entries
proving out to be true, we have one credible
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Now the aim would be to be able to implement the operation you describe
by using the new segment map, which is an index pointing to sequential
ranges of on-disk blocks where the data is known to share a common key
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Nikhil Sontakke nikkh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Consider the following sequence of events:
s1 # CREATE SCHEMA test_schema;
s1 # CREATE TABLE test_schema.c1(x int);
Now open another session s2 and via gdb issue a breakpoint on
heap_create_with_catalog() which
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
I definitely think they are important enough to trigger a release. But as
you say, I think we need confirmation that they actually fix the problem
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
I definitely think they are important enough to trigger a release. But as
you say, I think we need confirmation that they actually fix the problem...
I have confirmed that the clog/subtrans fixes allow us to start up
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I think Daniel has run into this problem more than anyone else, so hearing
it's fixed for him makes me feel a lot better that it's been resolved. I'd
characterize this problem as a medium grade data corruption issue. It's
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Chris Redekop ch...@replicon.com wrote:
Well, on the other hand maybe there is something wrong with the data.
Here's the test/steps I just did -
1. I do the pg_basebackup when the master is under load, hot slave now will
not start up but warm slave will.
2.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
ISTM it would be reasonably non-controversial to allow users to issue
pg_cancel_backend against other sessions logged in as the same userID.
The question is whether to go further than that, and if so how much.
In *every* case
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Kääriäinen Anssi
anssi.kaariai...@thl.fi wrote:
I would be a step in the right direction if the DB owner would see all queries
to the DB in pg_stat_activity.
All, including that of the superuser? I'd like to pass on that one, please.
In general, I feel there is
This patch would appear(?) to have languished:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=541
I'd really like to see it included. In the last comments of the
review, there seem to be problems in *terminate* backend, but even
just pg_cancel_backend as non-superuser would be just a
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK [on can be a problem in a script file]
So set it to interactive.
I think we have an opportunity for a documentation enhancement there.
In
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 4:41 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Unfortunately, it's impossible, because the error
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com writes:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm still of the opinion that there's no real need to avoid memcpy with
identical source and destination, so I didn't
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Assuming the issue really is the physical unlinks (which I agree I'd
like to see some evidence for), I wonder whether the problem could be
addressed
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
[ Sorry for letting this slip through the cracks ... I think I got
distracted by collation bugs :-( ]
Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 12:44:29PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Noah Misch
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Ross J. Reedstrom reeds...@rice.edu wrote:
Hmm, this thread seems to have petered out without a conclusion. Just
wanted to comment that there _are_ non-password storage uses for these
digests: I use them in a context of storing large files in a bytea
column,
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
A more long-range point about it is that the next time we make a
protocol version bump that affects the format of error messages,
the problem comes right back. It'd be better if the message somehow
indicated that the server
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com writes:
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
A more long-range point about it is that the next time we make a
protocol version bump that affects the format
Hello list,
This is something that I've only recently somewhat pinned down to a cause...
Some Postgres servers will error out for a while with the following
error message:
expected authentication request from server, but received c
If one uses Their Favorite Search Engine, this message is
Hello list,
At Heroku we use CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY with great success, but
recently when frobbing around some indexes I realized that there is no
equivalent for DROP INDEX, and this is a similar but lesser problem
(as CREATE INDEX takes much longer), as DROP INDEX takes an ACCESS
EXCLUSIVE
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
At Heroku we use CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY with great success, but
recently when frobbing around some indexes I
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
We could perhaps go a bit further and make pqsecure_write responsible
for the error message in non-SSL mode too, but it looks to me like
pqSendSome has to have a switch on the errno anyway to decide whether to
keep trying or
Hello list,
A little while ago time ago I posted about how my ... exciting
backup procedure caused occasional problems starting due to clog not
being big enough.
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-04/msg01148.php) I
recently had a reproduction and a little bit of luck, and I
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Shiv rama.the...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear pgsql-hackers,
My name is Sivasankar Ramasubramanian (you can call me Shiv).
That's an awesome nickname.
My project is aimed towards extending
and hopefully improving upon pgtune. If any of you have some ideas or
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
Another point, as there appear to be diverging camps about
supertransactional stored procedures vs. autonomous transactions, what
would be the actual use cases of any of these features? Let's collect
some, so we can
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 04/24/2011 10:06 PM, Daniel Farina wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Greg Smithg...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
There's still the fsync'd a data block but not the directory entry yet
issue as fall-out from this too
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Daniel Farina points out to me that the Linux man page for fsync() says
Calling fsync() does not necessarily ensure that the entry in the directory
containing the file has also reached disk. For that an
explicit
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
There's still the fsync'd a data block but not the directory entry yet
issue as fall-out from this too. Why doesn't PostgreSQL run into this
problem? Because the exact code sequence used is this one:
open
write
fsync
To start at the end of this story: DETAIL: Could not read from file
pg_clog/007D at offset 65536: Success.
This is a message we received on a a standby that we were bringing
online as part of a test. The clog file was present, but apparently
too small for Postgres (or at least I tihnk this is
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
To start at the end of this story: DETAIL: Could not read from file
pg_clog/007D at offset 65536: Success.
This is a message we received
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 25.03.2011 03:00, Daniel Farina wrote:
Here is the mechanism: I want to author a recovery.conf to perform
some amount of restore_command or streaming replication based
recovery, but I do
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
1. The table has been created or truncated in the same transaction
2. We are not in a subtransaction (or the table was created and truncated in
the same subtransaction)
3. There are no open portals
Hello List,
I have a couple of use cases that are important to me, but my reading
of xlog.c suggests I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. Or, I am
missing some commonly used pattern -- forgive me in that case. I am
reading 9.0.3 when making these determinations.
Here is the mechanism: I
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
I'll send you a perl program we wrote for a customer to check for
strange issues in btrees. Please give it a spin; it may give you more
clues. If you find additional checks to add, please let me know!
I have
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I didn't get the Streaming Rep + Hot Standby features I wanted in 9.0 either.
But committing what was reasonable to include in that version let me march
forward with very useful new code, doing another year of
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
2. Synchronous replication. Splitting up this patch has allowed some
On top of 4 listed reviewers I know Dan Farina is poking at the last update,
so we may see one more larger report on top of what's
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 5:25 AM, marcin mank marcin.m...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
Right now, as it stands, the syncrep patch will be happy as soon as
the data has been fsynced to either B or A-prime; I don't think we can
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
2. Synchronous replication. Splitting up this patch
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Right now, as it stands, the syncrep patch will be happy as soon as
the data has been fsynced to either B or A-prime; I don't think we can
guarantee at any point that A-prime can become the leader, and feed B.
Yeah, I
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Daniel,
Ah, okay, I had missed that discussion, I also did not know it got so
specific as to address this case (are you sure?) rather than something
more general, say quorum or N-safe durability.
The way we address that
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 22:42 -0800, Daniel Farina wrote:
Oh, yes, this reproduces past shutdowns/startups, and there's quite a
few txids before I catch up. I'm also comfortable poking around with
gdb (I have already recompiled
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 2/25/11 4:57 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 15:44 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
Hmmm, I don't follow this. The user can only disable syncrep for their
own transactions. If they don't care about the persistence
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
DEBUG: write 0/3027BC8 flush 0/3014690 apply 0/3014690
DEBUG: released 0 procs up to 0/3014690
DEBUG: write 0/3027BC8 flush 0/3027BC8
With some more fooling around, I have also managed to get this elog(WARNING)
if (proc-lwWaitLink == NULL)
elog(WARNING, could not locate ourselves on
wait queue);
--
fdr
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Well, good news all round.
v17 implements what I believe to be the final set of features for sync
rep. This one I'm actually fairly happy with. It can be enjoyed best at
DEBUG3.
I've been messing with this patch and
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Well, good news all round.
v17 implements what I believe to be the final set of features for sync
rep. This one I'm actually fairly happy
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Daniel Farina wrote:
As it will be somewhat hard to prove the durability guarantees of
commit without special heroics, unless someone can suggest a
mechanism.
Could you introduce a hack creating deterministic server
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org wrote:
Well, good news all round.
Hello on this thread,
I'm taking a look at replication timeout with non-blocking which would
be nice but not required for this patch, in my understanding. But
before that, we're going to put
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
Context diff equivalent attached.
Thanks for the patch!
As I said before, the timeout which this patch provides doesn't work well
when
This is another bit of the syncrep patch split out.
I will revisit the replication timeout one Real Soon, I promise -- but
I have a couple things to do today that may delay that until the
evening.
https://github.com/fdr/postgres/commit/ad3ce9ac62f0e128d7d1fd20d47184f867056af1
Context diff
Hello list,
I split this out of the synchronous replication patch for independent
review. I'm dashing out the door, so I haven't put it on the CF yet or
anything, but I just wanted to get it out there...I'll be around in
Not Too Long to finish any other details.
--
fdr
***
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Why do we have to involve the whole of PostgreSQL? Since the only piece
that links to libreadline is psql, perhaps we could fix this by having
only psql optionally use GnuTLS. (I don't know if you can make an
Hello list,
I split this out of the synchronous replication patch for independent
review. I'm dashing out the door, so I haven't put it on the CF yet or
anything, but I just wanted to get it out there...I'll be around in
Not Too Long to finish any other details.
--
fdr
***
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* charles.mcdev...@emc.com (charles.mcdev...@emc.com) wrote:
Don't forget that OpenSSL has a FIPS-140 compliant version, and FIPS-140
compliance is essential to many Federal users.
Essential? That's a bit much. Yes,
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Daniel Farina drfar...@acm.org wrote:
I split this out of the synchronous replication patch for independent
review. I'm dashing out the door, so I haven't put it on the CF yet
On Feb 11, 2011 8:20 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 11.02.2011 22:11, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Feb
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Hello,
Per:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=607109
It seems we may have a problem to consider. As far as I know, we are the
only major platform that supports libedit but our default is readline.
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Errr, well, ok, this is curious.
gis= alter user sfrost set role gis;
ALTER ROLE
gis= ^D\q
beren:/home/sfrost psql --cluster 8.4/main -d gis
psql (8.4.5)
Type help for help.
gis= show role;
role
--
gis
So
Hello list,
I wanted to test the waters on how receptive people might be to an
extension that would allow Postgres to support two passwords for a
given role. I have recently encountered a case where this would be
highly useful when performing rolling password upgrades across many
client
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Have you thought of trying to use an external auth source like LDAP for such
a scheme?
I have thought about that, although LDAP is the only one that came to
mind (I don't know a whole lot of systems in detail, only by
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Daniel Farina drfar...@acm.org writes:
I wanted to test the waters on how receptive people might be to an
extension that would allow Postgres to support two passwords for a
given role.
Not very. Why don't you just put two
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
How does this work with newly created objects? Is there a way to have
them default objects to a different owner, the parent of the two
roles?
No, but you could easily assign default permissions.
In the case of password
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
* Eventual Retirement of old credentials without having to issue ALTER
statements (or really statements of any kind...) against application
schema objects.
OK, that's a different goal. You want to be able to expire
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
It strikes me that it would be useful to have a GUC that sets the
owner of any new objects you create
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
With respect to the syntax itself, I have mixed feelings. On the one
hand, I'm a big fan of CREATE IF NOT EXISTS and DROP IF EXISTS
precisely because I believe they handle many common cases that people
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Daniel Farina wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
With respect to the syntax itself, I have mixed feelings. ?On the one
hand, I'm a big fan of CREATE
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
What are we adding a pl/pgsql dependency for? What is the benefit that
will warrant requiring people who disable plpgsql to enable it for
restores?
There are two use cases I want to cover:
1) It should be possible to
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Darren Duncan dar...@darrenduncan.net wrote:
A key component of a good type system is that users can define data types,
and moreover where possible, system-defined types are defined in the same
ways as users define types. For example, stuff like temporal types
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
I think the best we'll do is be able to hack on some of the things that
we actively want and have clear use cases for, such as type interfaces.
We might have to give up on some of the more ambitious ideas that
involve
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Daniel Farina drfar...@acm.org writes:
Here are some weaknesses in the SUM aggregate that run up against the
type system. Maybe they'll help crystallize some discussion:
SUM(int2) = int4
SUM(int4) = int8
SUM(int8) = numeric
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Like Tom, I'm not sure this is really a type-system problem. This
sounds like a complaint that operations on numeric are much slower
than operations on int4 and int8, even for values that could be
represented by either
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Since we now have PL/pgsql by default, we could possibly fix pg_dump
--clean by emitting a DO block, although the syntax for checking
existence of a table is none too pretty, and it would make pg_dump
--clean rely for
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
If we're going to try to fix this, we probably ought to try to make
sure that we are fixing it fairly completely. How confident are you
that this is the only problem?
I haven't tried to isolate problems on really
Hello List,
Is there any reason why Postgres should not support an ALTER TABLE
tablename [IF EXISTS] feature? (And similar for other ALTER
OBJECTTYPE)
For example, a hypothetical statement that attempts to drop a
constraint in a *completely* optional manner would look like the
following:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
That spells large maintenance burden to me, even if any one command
would be relatively simple to fix. And we haven't even reached the
question of whether pg_dump could use these things usefully; I suspect
that the bottom-line
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
What you're proposing would maybe be useful for overwriting a database
that contains portions of what is in the source database, but what's
the use of that? You could just as well dropdb and start fresh. The
interesting case
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Daniel Farina drfar...@acm.org writes:
I am somewhat sympathetic to this argument, except for one thing:
pg_dump --clean will successfully and silently wipe out a foreign key
right now, should it exist
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Daniel Farina drfar...@acm.org writes:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Daniel Farina drfar...@acm.org writes:
pg_dump --clean will successfully and silently wipe out a foreign key
right now
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you give us a self-contained example of the problem you're talking about?
Sure. Consider the following:
CREATE TABLE t1 (
id integer PRIMARY KEY
);
CREATE TABLE t2 (
id integer PRIMARY KEY,
fk integer
);
Hello list,
I just encountered an interesting undesirable behavior in Postgres
9.0's error reporting dealing with (trivially) malformed
recovery.conf, as might be the case when setting up hot standby. In
this case, there were some missing fields, and they were checked as
they are supposed to be
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Daniel Farina drfar...@acm.org wrote:
As a result, aborting startup due to startup process failure is seen
in the log, but not the messages seen in
xlog.c:readRecoveryCommandFile
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
All those issues can be avoided if you only run git gc when all the
working directories are in a clean state, with no staged but uncommitted
changes or other funny things. I can live with that gun tied
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand, if you have technical corrections, or if
you have suggestions on how to do the same things better (rather than
suggestions on what to do differently), that would be greatly
appreciated.
Somewhere in
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Especially if someone has a clue how to do it. The last time I fixed
it by runnin repack, but that didn't work this time. I have no clue
why it's asking for a file that doesn't exist.
Does the repo run
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org wrote:
I'm thinking about exporting the raw parser and related modules as a C
library. Though this will not be an immediate benefit of PostgreSQL
itself, it will be a huge benefit for any PostgreSQL
applications/middle ware
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Mike Lewis mikelikes...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks. Added it.
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=292
I have reviewed this patch; this is my review:
Regression tests pass with assertions enabled.
Performance gains reported by author confirmed.
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com wrote:
If you implement that optimization, we need have kind of
implicit, homologous qual information. Sure, it's possible.
I'm not sure precisely what you mean here. Do you predict the
mechanism will be complicated? It's
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe the changes will probably not be 2-3 lines (ie. a member
added to Query structure, etc) if I try it. But the optimizer part is
too complicated to me so that I am not sure, either. My idea above is
that the
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The real question is what benefit you expect to get. If the filter
condition can't be pushed below the window functions (which AFAICS
Even on the partition key?
Right now if you define a view with a windowing + PARTITION BY
In the function subquery_is_pushdown_safe, there is an immediate
false returned if the subquery has a windowing function. While that
seems true in general, are there cases where we can push down a qual
if it is on the partitioning key? Or do NULLs or some other detail
get in the way?
fdr
--
301 - 400 of 432 matches
Mail list logo
