On 29 jan 2009, at 05.35, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 23:59:46 Magnus Hagander wrote:
Marko Kreen wrote:
On 1/27/09, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 15:51:02 Marko Kreen wrote:
Such app
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 09:34 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
It does *during recovery*, before InitXLogAccess is called. Yeah, it's
harmless currently. It would be pretty hard to keep it up-to-date in
bgwriter and other processes. I think it's better to keep it at 0,
which is clearly an
Dear All,
I apologize if this has been discussed before. I have tried to search to the
mailing list and could not find an exact answer.
Currently, Postgres uses Knuth's Algorithm 5.4.2D to perform external merge
sort. IMHO the algorithm is designed for tapes.
Why don't the simple text book
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 10:36 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
I feel quite good about this patch now. Given the amount of code churn, it
requires testing, and I'll read it through one more time after
On Thursday 29 January 2009 01:05:07 Tom Lane wrote:
The appeal of the pg_dump approach is that it will automatically handle
everything that there exists a plain-SQL representation for, which is to
say darn near everything. We will need special purpose code to deal
with the dropped-column and
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On 29 jan 2009, at 05.35, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 23:59:46 Magnus Hagander wrote:
Marko Kreen wrote:
On 1/27/09, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 15:51:02 Marko Kreen
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On 29 jan 2009, at 05.35, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 23:59:46 Magnus Hagander wrote:
Marko Kreen wrote:
On 1/27/09, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Tuesday 27
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On 29 jan 2009, at 05.35, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 23:59:46 Magnus Hagander wrote:
Marko Kreen wrote:
On 1/27/09, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net
Hm the previous proposal was to add syntax to create table to create
placeholder columns of specified width.
On the one hand the special syntax is less kludgy but on the other
hand keeping all the compatibility code in pg_dump is attractive. Net
I think prefer your solution.
I don't
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 11:20 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 10:36 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com
wrote:
I feel quite good about this patch now. Given the amount of code
Simon Riggs wrote:
My proposed fix for Fujii-san's minSafeStartPoint bug is to introduce
another control file state DB_IN_ARCHIVE_RECOVERY_BASE. This would show
that we are still recovering up to the point of the end of the base
backup. Once we reach minSafeStartPoint we then switch state to
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I'm wondering if this problem could be solved with a sort of
mark-and-sweep garbage collection:
...
Then you can write something which goes through and sets all the rows
to false and then visits every row of every table in the database and
forces
I thought reviewboard looked pretty good for code quality patch review. It
would be cool if someone could write a mail filter which automatically added
any patches posted to the list to reviewboard.
Incidentally one issue with reviewboard/patchwork/whatever is that they tend
to encourage the
It looks like if you issue a fast shutdown during recovery, postmaster
doesn't kill bgwriter.
...
LOG: restored log file 00010028 from archive
LOG: restored log file 00010029 from archive
LOG: consistent recovery state reached at 0/295C
...
LOG: restored
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 12:22 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
My proposed fix for Fujii-san's minSafeStartPoint bug is to introduce
another control file state DB_IN_ARCHIVE_RECOVERY_BASE. This would show
that we are still recovering up to the point of the end of the base
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Specifically, it's the SetEnvironmentVariable() call from
pgwin32_putenv() called from pgwin32_unsetenv(). When this is disabled
things work just fine.
That's strange :( What arguments are it sent to the function? Since this
is an API function, it really shouldn't
Bruce Momjian píše v st 28. 01. 2009 v 23:19 -0500:
I am stumped as well. In the 12 years I have been involved, there are
perhaps five issues that the original pg_upgrade written in 1998 didn't
handle, and mostly handles now. Considering the number of catalog
changes since 1998, the ratio
read up-thread, i've already shown that this would not be the case. remember,
we reduce the pressure from the large, complex patches that bottleneck the
process, which allows more parralell review/commit.
I read what you wrote - I just don't believe it. My own experience is
that doing more
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 12:22 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
It
comes from the fact that we set minSafeStartPoint beyond the actual end
of WAL, if the last WAL segment is only partially filled (= fails CRC
check at some point). If we crash after setting minSafeStartPoint
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
read up-thread, i've already shown that this would not be the case. remember,
we reduce the pressure from the large, complex patches that bottleneck the
process, which allows more parralell review/commit.
I read what you wrote - I just don't believe
On Thursday 29 January 2009 11:40:48 Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
well from a quick glance there is the bugzilla demo install as well as
pieces of reviewboard and patchwork on the trackerdemo jail.
So what's the URL and where can we sign up?
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Tom Lane píše v st 28. 01. 2009 v 18:05 -0500:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I really like this idea, assuming I understand it. Basically, I think
you're proposing that we move the old system catalogs out of the way,
bootstrap a new catalog, and then using SQL (running inside
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 15:31 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Now when we restart the recovery, we will never reach
minSafeStartPoint, which is now 0/400, and we'll fail with the
error that Fujii-san pointed out. We're already way past the min
recovery point of base backup by then.
The
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Gregory Stark st...@enterprisedb.com writes:
I don't think partitioning is really the same thing as row-level
security.
Of course not, but it seems to me that it can be used to accomplish most
of the same practical use-cases. The main gripe about doing it
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 15:31 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Now when we restart the recovery, we will never reach
minSafeStartPoint, which is now 0/400, and we'll fail with the
error that Fujii-san pointed out. We're already way past the min
recovery point of base
On Thursday 29 January 2009 08:39:48 Gregory Stark wrote:
I wish we could get rid of the whole concept and stigma of being bumped
your patch will be released in the next release after it's committed. What
does it matter if there's been another release since you started or not?
This is the
I wish we could get rid of the whole concept and stigma of being bumped your
patch will be released in the next release after it's committed. What does it
matter if there's been another release since you started or not?
It matters because the intervening beta/release cycle is likely to sap
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
It looks like if you issue a fast shutdown during recovery, postmaster
doesn't kill bgwriter.
Hmm, seems like we haven't thought through how shutdown during
consistent recovery is supposed to behave in general. Right now, smart
shutdown doesn't do anything during
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Thursday 29 January 2009 11:40:48 Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
well from a quick glance there is the bugzilla demo install as well as
pieces of reviewboard and patchwork on the trackerdemo jail.
So what's the URL and where can we sign up?
note the pieces part of my
Is this what is desired? It seems to me that Wdoc is getting a high
ranking even when we are not sure of the position information.
0.1 is not very high rank, and we could not suggest any reasonable rank in this
case. This document may be good, may be bad. rank_cd is not limited by 1.
The
Stefan Kaltenbrunner ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc writes:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Thursday 29 January 2009 11:40:48 Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
well from a quick glance there is the bugzilla demo install as well as
pieces of reviewboard and patchwork on the trackerdemo jail.
So what's the URL
I don't think partitioning is really the same thing as row-level security.
Of course not, but it seems to me that it can be used to accomplish most
of the same practical use-cases. The main gripe about doing it via
partitioning is that the user's nose gets rubbed in the fact that there
Gregory Stark wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc writes:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Thursday 29 January 2009 11:40:48 Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
well from a quick glance there is the bugzilla demo install as well as
pieces of reviewboard and patchwork on the trackerdemo
All,
Thing is, our review/commit process is so peculiar to our project that
using *any* prebuilt solution would require us to change our process to
support the tool. And I can't imagine this group doing that.
--Josh
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 10:18 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
All,
Thing is, our review/commit process is so peculiar to our project that
using *any* prebuilt solution would require us to change our process to
support the tool. And I can't imagine this group doing that.
I am not sure I agree with
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 15:31 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Now when we restart the recovery, we will never reach
minSafeStartPoint, which is now 0/400, and we'll fail with the
error that Fujii-san pointed out. We're already way past the min
Josh,
Someone submits patch
ticket is created
reviewer takes ticket
comments
submitter takes ticket
fixes based on comments
review takes ticket
approves
if reviewer is a committers, he commits.
if reviewer isn't he set the ticket to need final review
tickets that are in that state are
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
Alvaro Herrera escreveu:
I wasn't sure of the best place to add a check. I have added it to
transformRelOptions; I am not entirely comfortable with it, because it
works, but it still allows this:
IMHO it's the appropriate
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Teodor Sigaev teo...@sigaev.ru wrote:
Is this what is desired? It seems to me that Wdoc is getting a high
ranking even when we are not sure of the position information.
0.1 is not very high rank, and we could not suggest any reasonable rank in
this case.
I am using a library that links with and initializes libcrypto (ie.
CRYPTO_set_locking_callback) but not SSL. This causes problems even
when using PQinitSSL(FALSE) because things like SSL_library_init(); are
not called (unless I manually call them, copy and paste code from
fe-secure.c which
Howdy,
Shouldn't this work?
postgres=# SELECT 'foo' IS DISTINCT FROM ANY(ARRAY['foo']);
ERROR: syntax error at or near ANY
LINE 1: SELECT 'foo' IS DISTINCT FROM ANY(ARRAY['foo']);
Seems to me that IS DISTINCT FROM is just another operator, like =,
and so it should work with ANUY(),
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Specifically, it's the SetEnvironmentVariable() call from
pgwin32_putenv() called from pgwin32_unsetenv(). When this is disabled
things work just fine.
That's strange :( What arguments are it sent to the function? Since this
is an API
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Specifically, it's the SetEnvironmentVariable() call from
pgwin32_putenv() called from pgwin32_unsetenv(). When this is disabled
things work just fine.
That's strange :( What arguments are it sent to
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
But that's *not* actually how we do things. So you're making my point.
Well, the stuff around the wiki status board is pretty new and I don't
think anyone feels that it's set in stone yet. The thing we don't want
to compromise on, IMHO, is that the
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
Seems to me that IS DISTINCT FROM is just another operator, like =,
Wishful thinking...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 08:12:12PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
Seems to me that IS DISTINCT FROM is just another operator, like
=,
Wishful thinking...
What would it take to make this wish come true?
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 08:12:12PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
Seems to me that IS DISTINCT FROM is just another operator, like =,
Wishful thinking...
What would it take to make this wish come true?
I don't
Alvaro Herrera escreveu:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
Alvaro Herrera escreveu:
I wasn't sure of the best place to add a check. I have added it to
transformRelOptions; I am not entirely comfortable with it, because it
works, but it still allows this:
IMHO it's the
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
I attached second version of space reservation patch. You can see first
version here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg00886.php
I thought about Heikki'es comments and I removed all catalog changes,
because there are not necessary to be in
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Bruce Momjian wrote:
One thing I think would help would be a pg_class column that says
whether the table is ready for upgrading.
Some quick reminders here; Tom included that idea from one of your earlier
discussions but also suggested a similar column in pg_database:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
The patch has two space reservations, one per page, another per tuple.
Now, thinking back, what types of changes have we made that increase
storage size. The one that I can think of first is where we made a data
type require larger storage. (I think inet/cidr.) This
51 matches
Mail list logo
