Hi,
On 07/22/2010 12:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I'm not sure why merging the SLRU pools with shared_buffers would
benefit from dynamically allocated shared memory.
Well, I'm not sure how you'd merge SLRU pools with shared_buffers. IMO
that inherently leads to the problem of allocating memory
On 21/07 06.57, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Amber guxiaobo1...@gmail.com wrote:
I am trying to build RPostgreSQL on Solaris 10u7 X64, but have problems
with pg_config, the configure script of RPostgreSQL checks for pg_config and
got ?checking for pg_config...
On 07/22/2010 07:42 AM, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
Le 21/07/2010 23:23, Andreas Joseph Krogh a écrit :
[...]
I was googling for how to create a text-seach-config with the following
properties:
- Map unicode accentuated letters to an un-accentuated equivalent
- No stop-words
- Lowercase all
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
We need to decide what email addresses committers will use on the new
git repository when they commit.
Are you are aware that we already have a list of approved addresses
for the committers?
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:04, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
We need to decide what email addresses committers will use on the new
git repository when they commit.
Are you are aware that we already have a list of
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:04, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
We need to decide what email addresses committers will use on the new
git
Fujii Masao wrote:
How should the synchronous replication behave when the number of connected
standby servers is less than quorum?
1. Ignore quorum. The current patch adopts this. If the ACKs from all
connected standbys have arrived, transaction commit is successful
even if the number of
On tor, 2010-07-22 at 09:18 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:04, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
We need to decide what
On ons, 2010-07-21 at 23:06 +0200, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
This does not work as cleanly as you suppose, because some build
objects are stored in the source tree. configure being one of them.
So if you switch branches, configure is rerun
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:33, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tor, 2010-07-22 at 09:18 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:04, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:33, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tor, 2010-07-22 at 09:18 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22,
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:01 AM, Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch wrote:
On 07/22/2010 12:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I'm not sure why merging the SLRU pools with shared_buffers would
benefit from dynamically allocated shared memory.
Well, I'm not sure how you'd merge SLRU pools with
Hi,
On 07/22/2010 01:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Well, shared_buffers has to be allocated as one contiguous slab
because we index into it that way. So I don't really see how
dynamically allocating memory could help. What you'd need is a
different system for assigning buffer tags, so that a
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 1:41 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
We should enclose -1 with literal tag.
A quick survey of the documentation as a whole suggests that we
enclose -1 with literal in a few places but more commonly we don't.
I have no position on whether we should do it or
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:06 PM, David Christensen da...@endpoint.com wrote:
On Jul 21, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of mié jul 21 10:24:26 -0400 2010:
On tis, 2010-07-20 at 11:48 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
It's tempting to propose making
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:21 AM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, I see. That's pretty compelling, I guess. Although it still
seems like a lot of code...
I think there is a way to merge single-byte
Markus Wanner wrote:
On 07/20/2010 09:05 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Hmm, deriving code from a paper published by IBM sounds like bad news --
who knows what patents they hold on the techniques there?
Yeah, that might be an issue. Note, however, that the lock-based
variant differs substantially
Such version with macros and includes can look like this:
#ifdef MULTIBYTE
#define NEXT_X (x+= char_lens[i-1])
#define NEXT_Y (y+= y_char_len)
#define CMP (char_cmp(x, char_lens[i-1], y, y_char_len))
#else
#define NEXT_X (x++)
#define NEXT_Y (y++)
#define CMP (*x == *y)
#endif
static int
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, I see. That's pretty compelling, I guess. Although it still
seems like a lot of code...
I think there is a way to merge single-byte and multi-byte versions of
functions without loss in performance using macros and
20.07.2010 18:31, Robert Haas:
According to the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output, your slow query is
executing in 0.007 ms, and your fast query is executing in 0.026 ms
(i.e. not as quickly as the slow query). Since you mention that it
takes 7 s further down, I suspect this is not the real EXPLAIN
Hello
I see a SQL/MED security very unclean - it have to be very vell documented :(
I have a database on port 5401. With user Tom - it require a password
[pa...@nemesis pgsql]$ psql-dev1 postgres -U tom
Password for user tom:
Timing is on.
psql-dev1 (9.0devel)
Type help for help.
postgres=
I
Greg,
On 07/22/2010 03:59 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
There's a fairly good mapping of what techniques are patented and which
were only mentioned in research in the Sun dynamic memory patent at
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7328316.html ; that mentions an earlier
paper by the author of the
http://www.sigaev.ru/misc/builtin_knngist_core-0.8.gz
http://www.sigaev.ru/misc/builtin_knngist_itself-0.8.gz
http://www.sigaev.ru/misc/builtin_knngist_proc-0.8.gz
http://www.sigaev.ru/misc/builtin_knngist_contrib_pg_trgm-0.8.gz
http://www.sigaev.ru/misc/builtin_knngist_contrib_btree_gist-0.8.gz
2010/7/14 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
The attached patch is a part of efforts to support security label
on database objects.
This is similar to what I had in mind as a design for this feature,
but I have some gripes:
1. I am inclined to suggest the syntax SECURITY LABEL ON ... IS ...,
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 16:30 +, Leonardo F wrote:
To sum up: IMHO nor improvements in memory usage nor
in startup time would be good reasons to switch to bitmap
indexes... but bulk index creation time (10 minutes to index
what it takes 60 minutes with btree... and maybe more if tables
Hi everybody
I am doing a modification to Dynamic programming algorithm in postgreSQL. I
want to re-use a plan of one joinrels for another of the same level.
For example,
if lev=5 , and let's say there are two combinations setA = {1,2,3,4,5} and
set B={6,7,8,9,10}.
I want to reuse the plan of
Hi,
From the code I understood that when executing a query normally, in
READ COMMITTED mode, we take a new snapshot for every query that comes
out of rewrite. But in an EXPLAIN ANALYZE, we only update the CID of
the snapshot taken when the EXPLAIN started.
Did I misunderstand the code?
New numbers on where we are with this CommitFest:
71 patches were submitted
3 patches were withdrawn (deleted) by their authors
--
68 total patches currently in the application
--
3 committed to 9.0
--
65 9.1 patches
--
1 rejected
5 returned with feedback
11 committed for 9.1
--
17 9.1
Excerpts from Markus Wanner's message of jue jul 22 08:49:29 -0400 2010:
Of course, as mentioned in the bgworker patch, this could be done
differently. Using solely shared memory, or maybe SLRU to store change
sets. However, I certainly like the abstraction and guarantees such a
message
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
48 pending
8 ready for committer
Note that all of the patches except one which are marked as Ready for
Committer were either submitted by a committer, or the reviewer is a
committer. Of those, 3 are mine. Two
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:38 PM, vamsi krishna
vamsikrishna1...@gmail.com wrote:
if lev=5 , and let's say there are two combinations setA = {1,2,3,4,5} and
set B={6,7,8,9,10}.
I want to reuse the plan of {1.2,3,4,5} for {6,7,8,9,10}.
I don't think that makes any sense.
--
Robert Haas
Hi,
On 07/22/2010 08:31 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
FWIW I don't think you should be thinking in replacing imessages with
SLRU. I rather think you should be thinking in how can you implement
the imessages API on top of SLRU.
Well, I'm rather comparing SLRU with the dynamic allocator. So far
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 02:38:17PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, I'd like some more votes, too. Aside from what I suggested
(array_join/array_split), I think my favorite is your #5.
-1 for me for any name that
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
18 patches have reviews due within four days or less
This is a very big number... I hope some of these reviews start to
come in soon. I think this is where our bottleneck is at present.
Based on off-list emails, I expect most of these to clear by
On ons, 2010-07-21 at 15:48 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of mié jul 21 15:18:58 -0400 2010:
After some investigation I figured that I need to add two more checks
into the ALTER TABLE code to prevent certain types of direct changes to
typed tables
On ons, 2010-07-21 at 22:12 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
The two functions aren't perfectly symmetric, because
pg_stat_get_backend_server_port() returns -1 if it's a unix socket,
and
pg_stat_get_backend_server_addr() returns NULL (which is also
overloaded
to mean that you don't have
Per discussion and investigation on the -jdbc list, the server appears to
violate the frontend/backend protocol when binary copy data is sent to the
server. Upon receiving the binary copy end of data marker (a -1 field
count), the server immediately responds with CommandComplete and
Hello,
At least from a performance point of view CINE should never cause a table
rewrite, it should either execute as a plain CREATE or as nothing. I don't
mind if the CINE fails if the column already exists but with a different
definition, so maybe it could be worded differently to make it
On 21/07/10 14:43, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hello
I am sending a actualised patch.
Hi, thanks!
I understand to your criticism about line numbering. I have to
agree. With line numbering the patch is longer. I have a one
significant reason for it.
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION public.foo()
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Jan Urbański wulc...@wulczer.org wrote:
the rest are just stylistic nitpicks.
But, if the patch author doesn't fix them, the committer has to, so
your nitpicking is much appreciated, at least by me!
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Kris Jurka bo...@ejurka.com wrote:
Per discussion and investigation on the -jdbc list, the server appears to
violate the frontend/backend protocol when binary copy data is sent to the
server. Upon receiving the binary copy end of data marker (a -1 field
Thanks for your reviewing.
(2010/07/23 0:54), Robert Haas wrote:
2010/7/14 KaiGai Koheikai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
The attached patch is a part of efforts to support security label
on database objects.
This is similar to what I had in mind as a design for this feature,
but I have some gripes:
2010/7/22 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Thanks for your reviewing.
1. I am inclined to suggest the syntax SECURITY LABEL ON ... IS ...,
following COMMENT ON (it's also somewhat similar to the GRANT syntax).
While the hook in ExecCheckRTPerms() will only allow meaningful
permissions
(2010/07/23 10:05), Robert Haas wrote:
2010/7/22 KaiGai Koheikai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Thanks for your reviewing.
1. I am inclined to suggest the syntax SECURITY LABEL ON ... IS ...,
following COMMENT ON (it's also somewhat similar to the GRANT syntax).
While the hook in ExecCheckRTPerms()
2010/7/22 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
I see a SQL/MED security very unclean - it have to be very vell documented :(
ERROR: password is required
DETAIL: Non-superuser cannot connect if the server does not request a
password.
The security model of current FDW heavily depends on
2010/7/21 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
It is about 2% slower for UTF8 encoding. So it isn't significant for me.
I agree with your changes. Thank You very much
Thanks. The core-part is almost ready to commit.
I'll continue to review the contrib part.
But I found there is a design
David,
I checked your patch. Then, there are a few comments in the code.
Apart from the discussion in this thread, would you fix them please.
| *** a/src/bin/initdb/initdb.c
| --- b/src/bin/initdb/initdb.c
| *** static char infoversion[100];
| *** 111,116
| --- 111,117
|
2010/7/22 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Well, I like SECURITY LABEL better because it's more clear about what
kind of label we're talking about, but if there's consensus on some
other option it's OK with me. Actually, we need to work the security
provider name in there too, I think, so
2010/7/22 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Anyway, it is an obvious feature, and seems to me works fine.
So this makes it sound like you like the feature.
However, it is not clear for me how do we make progress this feature.
If we support a command to include other configuration, it also
(2010/07/23 13:00), Robert Haas wrote:
2010/7/22 KaiGai Koheikai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Anyway, it is an obvious feature, and seems to me works fine.
So this makes it sound like you like the feature.
However, it is not clear for me how do we make progress this feature.
If we support a command
(2010/07/23 12:56), Robert Haas wrote:
2010/7/22 KaiGai Koheikai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
Well, I like SECURITY LABEL better because it's more clear about what
kind of label we're talking about, but if there's consensus on some
other option it's OK with me. Actually, we need to work the security
2010/7/23 Itagaki Takahiro itagaki.takah...@gmail.com:
2010/7/21 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
It is about 2% slower for UTF8 encoding. So it isn't significant for me.
I agree with your changes. Thank You very much
Thanks. The core-part is almost ready to commit.
I'll continue to
52 matches
Mail list logo
