[HACKERS] Add a new backend process

Hello, I want to add a new backend process to postgres, to include my own auditing modules. How can i do that, also how can i signal it after! Sorry if this is very general question! I didn't find any source to learn these things in postgres. thanks in advance

Re: [HACKERS] Performance Enhancement/Fix for Array Utility Functions

> > > The existence and naming of ARR_MAX_HEADER_SIZE is somewhat dubious, > as it is: > Thanks you for the feedback. I cleaned up the patch. > * Used in exactly one place (not necessarily a reason why it should > not be reified into a stand-alone definition, though, but > something to consider

Re: [HACKERS] [v9.1] Add security hook on initialization of instance

(2010/06/15 21:37), Stephen Frost wrote: > KaiGai, > > * KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote: >> In the attached patch, the security hook was moved to ClientAuthentication() >> from InitPostgres(), for more clarification of the purpose. >> What I want to do is to assign additional properties

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE...ALTER COLUMN vs inheritance

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Bernd Helmle wrote: > Lost it a little from my radar, but here's is a first shot on this issue > now. The patch creates a new CONSTRAINT_NOTNULL contype and assigns all > required information for the NOT NULL constraint to it. Currently the > constraint records th

Re: [HACKERS] debug log in pg_archivecleanup

Fujii Masao wrote: > This is because pg_archivecleanup puts the line break "\n" in the head of > debug message. Why should we do so? > > --- > if (debug) > fprintf(stderr, "\n%s: removing \"%s\"", progname, WALFilePath); > --- We also need "\n" at

Re: [HACKERS] to enable O_DIRECT within postgresql

Daniel Ng writes: >I am trying to enable the direct IO for the disk-resident > hash partitions of hashjoin in postgresql. Why would you think that's a good idea? > Can anyone advise what's the reason and how to fix this? Per the open(2) man page: The O_DIRECT flag may impose ali

Re: [HACKERS] hstore ==> and deprecate =>

On Jun 15, 2010, at 6:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Well, the idea is it's like logical-and - give me only those keys that > appear on both sides... Yeah, but => doesn't return the keys, -> does. => returns an hstore. > If there is a critical mass of votes for one of these options, I'm > fine with

[HACKERS] to enable O_DIRECT within postgresql

Dear all, I am trying to enable the direct IO for the disk-resident hash partitions of hashjoin in postgresql. The basic postgres environment settings are: centos 5.5 kernel 2.6.18 ext3 fs PostgreSQL 8.4.3 Previously I added the O_DIRECT flag to the "fileF

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> I have yet to convince myself of how likely this is to occur.  I tried >> to reproduce this issue by crashing the database, but I think in 9.0 >> you need an actual operating system crash to cause this problem, and I >> haven't yet set up an

Re: [HACKERS] hstore ==> and deprecate =>

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 9:04 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Jun 15, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Andrew Gierth >> wrote: >>> I'm happy with deprecating the first two => in favour of hstore() if >>> that is in line with general opinion. The hstore =>

Re: [HACKERS] hstore ==> and deprecate =>

On Jun 15, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Andrew Gierth > wrote: >> I'm happy with deprecating the first two => in favour of hstore() if >> that is in line with general opinion. The hstore => text[] slice could >> be replaced by another operator name; the

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers

On 6/15/10 5:09 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> > In 9.0, I think we can fix this problem by (1) only streaming WAL that >> > has been fsync'd and > > I don't think this is the best solution; it would be a noticeable > performance penalty on replication. Actually, there's an even bigger reason not to

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers

> I have yet to convince myself of how likely this is to occur. I tried > to reproduce this issue by crashing the database, but I think in 9.0 > you need an actual operating system crash to cause this problem, and I > haven't yet set up an environment in which I can repeatedly crash the > OS. I

Re: [HACKERS] [RRR] Reviewfest 2010-06 Plans and Call for Reviewers

> A few folks from PDXPUG are meeting up this evening to go over some > patches. We'll be on IRC at #pdxpug from 6pm-8pm PDT if you want to > join in virtually. We'll try to organize an SFPUG review for next month, shortly before the commitfest starts. -- -- J

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0 beta2 pg_upgrade command line parsing

Steve Singer wrote: > > When I try running pg_upgrade from beta2 on an AIX server I'm unable to > get beyond the command line parsing (no matter what command line > arguments I pass in it always complains about the usage). > > > When I compile pg_upgrade it complains about: > > option.c: In f

Re: [HACKERS] [RRR] Reviewfest 2010-06 Plans and Call for Reviewers

Hi! On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.1_Development_Plan > > calls for a ReviewFest to run from the 15th of June (tomorrow) until > the start of the first CommitFest for the 9.1 release.  The idea is > that those with time avail

Re: [HACKERS] New PGXN Extension site

David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Jun 15, 2010, at 3:22 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I totaly agreed you need funding, and you are very well qualified to do > > this, and it is a badly needed facility. > > Thanks. > > > The problem I had is that the effort appeared to be "I am creating my > > own s

Re: [HACKERS] New PGXN Extension site

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 03:42:59PM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Jun 15, 2010, at 3:22 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I totaly agreed you need funding, and you are very well qualified to do > > this, and it is a badly needed facility. > > Thanks. > > > The problem I had is that the effort

Re: [HACKERS] New PGXN Extension site

On Jun 15, 2010, at 3:22 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I totaly agreed you need funding, and you are very well qualified to do > this, and it is a badly needed facility. Thanks. > The problem I had is that the effort appeared to be "I am creating my > own sandbox, fund me" (particularly the FAQ), w

Re: [HACKERS] New PGXN Extension site

On Jun 15, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I think this project is a great idea, and I think as a community we > ought to be behind it 100%. > > However, I do wonder what happened to the original name, which IIRC > was PGAN. That seems easier to pronounce, remember, ... I didn't care for

Re: [HACKERS] New PGXN Extension site

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > This was just posted to announce.  Seems the community now has to > compete with another extension-based infrastructure if we ever get > around to developing one of our own. > > I personally had no knowledge of this, which is fine, but don't

Re: [HACKERS] New PGXN Extension site

David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Jun 15, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: > > > One issue that will come up: this is clearly a more commercial > > enterprise than Jarkko's CPAN (and the internet is a different place > > than it was in 1995) You pushed money right to the front with this, so >

Re: [HACKERS] hstore ==> and deprecate =>

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Andrew Gierth wrote: > I'm happy with deprecating the first two => in favour of hstore() if > that is in line with general opinion. The hstore => text[] slice could > be replaced by another operator name; the existing name comes from the > analogy that (hstore -> t

Re: [HACKERS] New PGXN Extension site

On 6/15/10 2:06 PM, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: > You pushed money right to the front with this, so > that will lead to certain questions concerning ownership of what > arguably should be community resources: the IP of the aggregate index, > for example. Oh, good point. We clearly need a FAQ item ab

Re: [HACKERS] New PGXN Extension site

On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 14:16 -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Jun 15, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: > > > One issue that will come up: this is clearly a more commercial > > enterprise than Jarkko's CPAN (and the internet is a different place > > than it was in 1995) You pushed money

Re: [HACKERS] New PGXN Extension site

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 01:25:33PM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Jun 15, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > This was just posted to announce. Seems the community now has to > > compete with another extension-based infrastructure if we ever get > > around to developing one of our o

[HACKERS] 9.0 beta2 pg_upgrade command line parsing

When I try running pg_upgrade from beta2 on an AIX server I'm unable to get beyond the command line parsing (no matter what command line arguments I pass in it always complains about the usage). When I compile pg_upgrade it complains about: option.c: In function 'parseCommandLine': option.c

Re: [HACKERS] New PGXN Extension site

On Jun 15, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: > One issue that will come up: this is clearly a more commercial > enterprise than Jarkko's CPAN (and the internet is a different place > than it was in 1995) You pushed money right to the front with this, so > that will lead to certain questio

Re: [HACKERS] New PGXN Extension site

> I, for one am +1 (although I do note a hint of PGX in PGXN :P). Yeah, we tried to come up with a name which didn't have "PGX" in it, for obvious reasons. However, everything we could come up with (here and on IRC) was very contrived. And "PGXN" does dovetail nicely with "PGXS", which it utili

Re: [HACKERS] New PGXN Extension site

On 6/15/10 1:12 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > This was just posted to announce. Seems the community now has to > compete with another extension-based infrastructure if we ever get > around to developing one of our own. It is possible for things to be community and not originate in the Core Team, Bru

Re: [HACKERS] New PGXN Extension site

Bruce Momjian writes: > This was just posted to announce. Seems the community now has to > compete with another extension-based infrastructure if we ever get > around to developing one of our own. The chapter of PGXN as announced here is to build a network of extensions, the ones I'm working on

Re: [HACKERS] New PGXN Extension site

On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 16:12 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > This was just posted to announce. Seems the community now has to > compete with another extension-based infrastructure if we ever get > around to developing one of our own. > > I personally had no knowledge of this, which is fine, but don'

Re: [HACKERS] New PGXN Extension site

Then you weren't paying attention at the devlopers' meeting. It's the bottom item on cheers andrew Bruce Momjian wrote: This was just posted to announce. Seems the community now has to compete wit

Re: [HACKERS] New PGXN Extension site

On Jun 15, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > This was just posted to announce. Seems the community now has to > compete with another extension-based infrastructure if we ever get > around to developing one of our own. > > I personally had no knowledge of this, which is fine, but don't exp

[HACKERS] New PGXN Extension site

This was just posted to announce. Seems the community now has to compete with another extension-based infrastructure if we ever get around to developing one of our own. I personally had no knowledge of this, which is fine, but don't expect me to get excited about it, except to consider it a thre

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> I wonder if it would be possible to jigger things so that we send the >> WAL to the standby as soon as it is generated, but somehow arrange >> things so that the standby knows the last location that the master has >> fsync'd and never applies

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers

> I wonder if it would be possible to jigger things so that we send the > WAL to the standby as soon as it is generated, but somehow arrange > things so that the standby knows the last location that the master has > fsync'd and never applies beyond that point. I can't think of any way which would

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] No hash join across partitioned tables?

On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Proposed patch attached. Hearing no objections, I have committed this patch. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To

Re: [HACKERS] [v9.1] Add security hook on initialization of instance

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > KaiGai, > > * KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote: >> In the attached patch, the security hook was moved to ClientAuthentication() >> from InitPostgres(), for more clarification of the purpose. >> What I want to do is to assign addition

Re: [HACKERS] [v9.1] Add security hook on initialization of instance

KaiGai, * KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote: > In the attached patch, the security hook was moved to ClientAuthentication() > from InitPostgres(), for more clarification of the purpose. > What I want to do is to assign additional properties to identify the client > (such as security label)

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Server crash while trying to read expression using pg_get_expr()

On Jun 15, 2010, at 9:31 , Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > You could avoid changing the meaning of fn_expr by putting the check in the > parse analysis phase, into transformFuncCall(). That would feel safer at > least for back-branches. For 9.0, wouldn't a cleaner way to accomplish this be a seperat

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers

On Jun 15, 2010, at 10:45 , Fujii Masao wrote: > A transaction commit would need to wait for local fsync and replication > in a serial manner, in synchronous replication. IOW, walsender cannot > send the commit record until it's fsync'd in XLogWrite(). Hm, but since 9.0 won't do synchronous replic

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote: Maybe.  That sounds like a pretty enormous foot-gun to me, considering

[HACKERS] debug log in pg_archivecleanup

Hi, Sometimes the postgres server log message and the pg_archivecleanup debug message are output in the same line as follows. This is a little hard to read. --- LOG: restored log file "0001006B" from archive pg_archivecleanup: keep WAL file 000100

PL/Perl function naming (was: [HACKERS] release notes)

[Sorry for the delay. I'd stopped checking the pgsql mailing lists. Thanks to David Wheeler and Josh Berkus for the heads-up.] On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 06:58:32PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Tim Bunce wrote: > >On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:34:37AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >>Andrew Dunstan writ

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 15/06/10 07:47, Fujii Masao wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Tom Lane  wrote: >>> >>> Fujii Masao  writes: Walsender tries to send WAL up to xlogctl->LogwrtResult.Write. OTOH, xlogctl->LogwrtResult.Write i

Re: [HACKERS] InvalidXLogRecPtr in docs

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 15/06/10 08:23, Fujii Masao wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Tom Lane  wrote: >>> >>> I'm not sure if it's worth the trouble, or even a particularly smart >>> idea, to force the output of the status function to be monoto

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Server crash while trying to read expression using pg_get_expr()

On 10/06/10 00:24, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: [ thinks for awhile... ] I wonder whether there is any way of locking down pg_get_expr so that it throws an error if called with anything except a suitable field from one of the system catalogs. I did a bit of research into this idea. It looks at l

Re: [HACKERS] [v9.1] Add security hook on initialization of instance

(2010/06/15 12:47), KaiGai Kohei wrote: > (2010/06/15 12:28), Tom Lane wrote: >> KaiGai Kohei writes: >> The attached patch tries to add one more security hook on the >> initialization of PostgreSQL instance (InitPostgres()). >> Yeah, but so what? Stephen's point is still valid. >>