The point here is that fsync-off is only realistic for development
or
playpen installations. You don't turn it off in a production
machine, and I can't see that you'd turn off the full-page-write
option either. So we have not solved anyone's performance problem.
Yes, this is basically
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 11:59 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
The point here is that fsync-off is only realistic for development
or playpen installations. You don't turn it off in a production
machine, and I
On 7/7/05, Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us wrote:
One idea would be to just tie its behavior directly to fsync and remove
the option completely (that was the original TODO), or we can adjust it
so it doesn't have the same risks as fsync, or the same lack of failure
reporting as fsync.
I
* Christopher Kings-Lynne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I'm strongly in favour of this patch. I am currently in this situation:
1. Web db user runs as non-superuser, non-owner.
2. I have a table of a tens of thousands of rows that I must delete
entirely and rebuild every day at least (pg_trgm
* Christopher Kings-Lynne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
There are other reasons for restricting it:
* truncate takes a much stronger lock than a plain delete does.
* truncate is not MVCC-safe.
I don't really agree with the viewpoint that truncate is just a quick
DELETE, and so I do not agree
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Andrew - Supernews ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
It's not MVCC-safe even with the AccessExclusive lock;
This seems like something which should probably be fixed,
You've missed the point entirely: this *cannot*
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 23:44:44 -0400,
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The thing that makes this slightly painful is that we can't tell what
version we are dumping *from* until we've connected, and so we cannot
automagically do the right thing here. I don't really see any other
way to
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But after falling back to template1, a version check could be made and
if running 8.1 or higher an error message could be displayed.
Once we're connected to template1, we might as well just use it ...
regards, tom lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there also a potential showstopper in the redo machinery? We work on
the assumption that the post-checkpoint block is available in WAL as a
before image. Redo for all actions merely replay the write action again
onto the block. If we must reapply the
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
We still don't know enough about the situation to know what a solution
might look like. Is the slowdown Josh is seeing due to the extra CPU
cost of the CRCs, or the extra I/O cost, or excessive locking of the
WAL-related data structures while we do this
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Darren Alcorn wrote:
I was interested as to if there were plans to develop SQL99 nested
tables.
Could you give an example of SQL99 nested tables? It might help us who
don't know what the term stand for understand the issue. I've browsed
through (bur not fully read) sql99
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But after falling back to template1, a version check could be made and
if running 8.1 or higher an error message could be displayed.
Once we're connected to template1, we might as well just use it ...
Agreed. In any
Here is a link that has a description. There is also a lot of
examples (of syntax as well) on Oracle's website.
http://www-db.stanford.edu/~ullman/fcdb/oracle/or-objects.html#nested
Darren
On Jul 8, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Darren Alcorn wrote:
I was
The way I understand Nested Tables and Object Relational Databases,
they basically are a layer on top of any old RDBMS that adds ease for
the user. I personally believe in normalization theory I just don't
like implementing it to avoid JOIN syntax.
How difficult would it be to implement
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 10:03:57 -0400,
Darren Alcorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is a link that has a description. There is also a lot of
examples (of syntax as well) on Oracle's website.
http://www-db.stanford.edu/~ullman/fcdb/oracle/or-objects.html#nested
So they are permitting sets
This list and all the other PostgreSQL lists suddenly started showing up
in my main mailbox instead of being sorted into my PG mailing list
folder. It turns out that the X-Mailing-List header that used to appear
in all messages has disappeared. Is this permanent or just a
misconfiguration that
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Andrew - Supernews ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On 2005-07-07, Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* truncate is not MVCC-safe.
Erm, that's why it gets a stronger lock, so I don't really see what
this has to do with it.
It's not
I just enabled teh RFC2369 stuff, which adds 'List-*' headers to the
message ... apparently, that overrides the X-Mailing-List setting ...
What you want to check for is:
List-ID: pgsql-hackers.postgresql.org
instead ... I'm going to look at getting X-Mailing-List added back in
though ...
There, that should do it ...
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
I just enabled teh RFC2369 stuff, which adds 'List-*' headers to the message
... apparently, that overrides the X-Mailing-List setting ...
What you want to check for is:
List-ID: pgsql-hackers.postgresql.org
Hackers,
Who is working on providing documentation for roles?
I was just going to alter the docs on users to remove the SYSID part,
but I noticed there is nothing at all for roles ...
_Is_ anybody working on it at all?
--
Alvaro Herrera (alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org)
We are who we choose to be,
* Alvaro Herrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Who is working on providing documentation for roles?
I was just going to alter the docs on users to remove the SYSID part,
but I noticed there is nothing at all for roles ...
_Is_ anybody working on it at all?
Just to put it out there, I'm not
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Who is working on providing documentation for roles?
Nothing's been done as yet, but Stephen and I are definitely on the
hook to provide some.
I was just going to alter the docs on users to remove the SYSID part,
but I noticed there is nothing at all
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:50:46AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was just going to alter the docs on users to remove the SYSID part,
but I noticed there is nothing at all for roles ...
Don't worry about it, will handle that as part of the roles docs
Tom,
Great. BTW, don't bother testing snapshots between 2005/07/05 2300 EDT
and just now --- Bruce's full_page_writes patch introduced a large
random negative component into the timing ...
Ach. Starting over, then.
--Josh
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 09:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Having raised that objection, ISTM that checking for torn pages can be
accomplished reasonably well using a few rules...
I have zero confidence in this; the fact that you can think of
(incomplete,
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think we should care too much about indexes. We can rebuild
them...but losing heap sectors means *data loss*.
If you're so concerned about *data loss* then none of this will be
acceptable to you at all. We are talking about going from a system
that
We've seen a couple of bug reports now about how domain constraints
aren't checked during input of a parameter that's been deduced to be
of a domain type, eg
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-interfaces/2005-07/msg9.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2005-07/msg00084.php
There's
Hi,
Thanks a Lot, it works.
So when it was changed (use of postgresql=YES), because I1m still use the
old way, download sources from postgres mirros, compile and install.
Best Regards
Rodrigo
-Mensagem original-
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Em nome de Christopher
I'm currently looking into a problem that a client is reporting that
pg_dump from 8.0.3 is 'skipping' one of their sequences ... I'm waiting
for more info, but am curious if anyone knows (or can think of?) any
reason why this might happen? The only thing I can think of is that the
sequence
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm currently looking into a problem that a client is reporting that
pg_dump from 8.0.3 is 'skipping' one of their sequences ... I'm waiting
for more info, but am curious if anyone knows (or can think of?) any
reason why this might happen? The
Marc,
I'm currently looking into a problem that a client is reporting that
pg_dump from 8.0.3 is 'skipping' one of their sequences ... I'm waiting
for more info, but am curious if anyone knows (or can think of?) any
reason why this might happen? The only thing I can think of is that the
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm currently looking into a problem that a client is reporting that
pg_dump from 8.0.3 is 'skipping' one of their sequences ... I'm waiting
for more info, but am curious if anyone knows (or can think of?) any
32 matches
Mail list logo
