Takahiro Itagaki wrote:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote some small patch, that allow preloading of selected ispell
dictionary. It solve the problem with slow tsearch initialisation with
some language configuration.
I afraid so this module doesn't help on MS Windows.
Sorry for the delay.
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Here's a patch I've been playing with.
Thanks! I'm reading the patch.
The idea is that in standby mode,
the server keeps trying to make progress in the recovery by:
a)
2010/3/21 Daniel Farina drfar...@acm.org:
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
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
2010/3/23 Daniel Farina drfar...@acm.org:
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
2010/3/23 Takahiro Itagaki itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote some small patch, that allow preloading of selected ispell
dictionary. It solve the problem with slow tsearch initialisation with
some language configuration.
I afraid so this
2010/3/23 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
2010/3/23 Takahiro Itagaki itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp:
The fundamental issue seems to be in the slow initialization of
dictionaries. If so, how about adding a pre-complile tool to convert
a dictionary into a binary file, and each backend
Modification of proposal:
I think so from discussion can take some two points:
a) enhancing editing
\ef funcname, line ... edit function and move cursor on line
\ef... edit function - name and line take from
error message
b) enhancing view
\sf funcname ...
2010/3/23 Nicolas Barbier nicolas.barb...@gmail.com:
2010/3/23 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
2010/3/23 Takahiro Itagaki itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp:
The fundamental issue seems to be in the slow initialization of
dictionaries. If so, how about adding a pre-complile tool to
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 05:10, Takahiro Itagaki
itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp wrote:
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
By the way: the pgbench.sgml that you committed looks like it passed
through a system that added a CR to every line in it. Probably not the
way you intended to commit
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
Well, sudo is pretty useful, and this would be quite similar.
+1.
I guess one of the big difficulties would be to be able to match a given
random query with the list of queries we have in any Jail, given that we
put in there generic queries and we want
Hi,
With the implementation of deferred unique constraints, we need to go
back to the index second time to check whether the unique check is valid.
Say a situation occurs like this
a) the first session doing the unique check finds out that there is a unique
check required second time and just
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
Hi,
With the implementation of deferred unique constraints, we need to go
back to the index second time to check whether the unique check is valid.
Say a situation occurs like this
a) the first session doing the unique check finds out that there is a unique
Can you also explain how are we avoiding duplicates in this scenario?
a) Say there are three pages(P,Q, R) full of duplicate tuples, that are
deleted but not dead of id x(due to some long running transaction).
b) Now Session A gets in and checks the duplicate tuples for their
liveliness with the
2010/3/23 Daniel Farina drfar...@acm.org:
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
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
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 similar mechanism you see in GROUP
Gokulakannan Somasundaram gokul...@gmail.com writes:
Can you also explain how are we avoiding duplicates in this scenario?
a) Say there are three pages(P,Q, R) full of duplicate tuples, that are
deleted but not dead of id x(due to some long running transaction).
b) Now Session A gets in and
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
There's a mismatch in HEAD between README and the actual definition in
replication/libpqwalreceiver.
In README,
bool walrcv_receive(int timeout, XLogRecPtr *recptr, char **buffer, int *len)
but in walreceiver.h,
typedef bool (*walrcv_receive_type) (int timeout, unsigned char *type,
Bruce,
I thought this year we were going to start using people's full names
instead of the first names, for clarity. No?
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
On 3/21/10 9:36 PM, Joseph Adams wrote:
Inside of the jail definition is a series of pseudo-statements that
indicate the space of queries the user can perform. Simply creating a
jail does not make it go into effect. A jail is activated using
another query, and it remains in effect for the
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
I thought this year we were going to start using people's full names
instead of the first names, for clarity. No?
+1 for that approach.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
I don't think that the idea of turning on the jail mode via a
session-level switch works, given the realities of connection pooling.
Also, I do not believe that we currently have any USERSET variable which
can be turned on
Are you talking about exclusion constraints or btree uniqueness
constraints? This doesn't seem to be a particularly accurate
description of the implementation of either one. The way btree
deals with this is explained in _bt_doinsert:
Unique constraints
* NOTE: obviously,
Gokulakannan Somasundaram gokul...@gmail.com writes:
This is fine, if the second session has to pass through the page, where the
first session inserted the record. But as i said if the second session finds
a free slot before hitting on the page where the first session inserted,
then it will
No, you don't understand how it works. All would-be inserters will hit
the same target page to begin with, ie, the first one that the new key
could legally be inserted on. The lock that protects against this
problem is the lock on that page, regardless of which page the key
actually ends up
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com
wrote:
Is there a way to avoid this double evaluation?
Maybe with a CTE?
WITH x AS (...) SELECT ...
It does look like surprising behavior.
Gokulakannan Somasundaram gokul...@gmail.com writes:
Consider Time instances T1, T2, T3, T4
T1 : session 1 holds the write lock on page p1 and completes the unique
check on p1, p2 and p3.
T2 : session 1 releases the lock on p1 (its waiting to acquire a ex lock on
p2)
That's not what we do.
Robert Haas escribió:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
BTW, if you wanted something less ambitious, we have a longstanding
request to implement local superuser, that is, the ability to give one
role the ability to edit other roles in one database only.
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com
wrote:
Is there a way to avoid this double evaluation?
Maybe
T2 : session 1 releases the lock on p1 (its waiting to acquire a ex lock
on
p2)
That's not what we do. See _bt_findinsertloc.
regards, tom lane
I am really confused. Please keep the cool and explain me, if i am
wrong. I could see this code in
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Robert Haas escribió:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
BTW, if you wanted something less ambitious, we have a longstanding
request to implement local superuser, that is, the ability to give one
role the
Oh! yeah, i got it. Thanks
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram
gokul...@gmail.com wrote:
T2 : session 1 releases the lock on p1 (its waiting to acquire a ex lock
on
p2)
That's not what we do. See _bt_findinsertloc.
regards, tom lane
Gokulakannan Somasundaram gokul...@gmail.com writes:
I am really confused. Please keep the cool and explain me, if i am
wrong. I could see this code in _bt_findinsertloc. There is a
_bt_relandgetbuf, which releases lock on p1 and tries to acquire a lock on
p2.
No, read it again. The
On mån, 2010-03-22 at 19:38 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
But if we are not comfortable about being able to do that safely, I
would be OK with just raising an error if a concatenation is
attempted
where one value contains a DTD. The impact in practice should be
low.
Right. Can you
Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce,
I thought this year we were going to start using people's full names
instead of the first names, for clarity. No?
OK, I will do this once Josh is done with his modifications.
--
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB
Is there a reason that recovery.conf uses true/false, while
postgresql.conf uses on/off?
#recovery_target_inclusive = 'true' # 'true' or 'false'
or are these settings more boolean for some reason?
--
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB
Tom Lane escribió:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Robert Haas escribi�:
But roles aren't database-specific... they're globals.
Well, that's another longstanding request ;-) (See the
db_user_namespace hack)
Yeah, you'd have to fix that first. The ambitious part
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
I wonder if this is simpler now that we got rid of the flat files stuff.
We could validate the user once we've connected to a database and thus
able to poke at the local user catalog, not just the global one. I
think that was a serious
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
I wonder if this is simpler now that we got rid of the flat files stuff.
We could validate the user once we've connected to a database and thus
able to poke at the local user
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
My first thought about a catalog representation would be to add a column
to pg_auth which is a DB OID for local users or zero for global users.
However, you'd probably want to prevent
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Is there a reason that recovery.conf uses true/false, while
postgresql.conf uses on/off?
IIRC, because, in the old version, recovery.conf allowed only
true/false as a boolean value. Of course, we can change those
now.
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 1:49 AM, Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com wrote:
There's a mismatch in HEAD between README and the actual definition in
replication/libpqwalreceiver.
In README,
bool walrcv_receive(int timeout, XLogRecPtr *recptr, char **buffer, int *len)
but in walreceiver.h,
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
My first thought about a catalog representation would be to add a column
to pg_auth which is a DB OID for local
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Simon Riggs sri...@postgresql.org wrote:
Log Message:
---
Add connection messages for streaming replication. log_connections
was broken for a replication connection and no messages were
displayed on either standby or primary, at any debug level.
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Not unless you'd like to solve the issues with triggers on system
catalogs first ...
Urp. Not really, though I don't know what they are exactly. I didn't
think exclusion
Pavel Stehule wrote:
Personally I dislike idea some dictionary precompiler - it is next
application for maintaining and maybe not necessary.
That's the sort of thing that can be done when first required by any
backend and the results saved in a file for other backends to mmap().
It'd probably
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 10:52 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Simon Riggs sri...@postgresql.org wrote:
Log Message:
---
Add connection messages for streaming replication. log_connections
was broken for a replication connection and no messages were
49 matches
Mail list logo
