On 7.1.2011 15:45, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 02:15, Simon Riggssi...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
One very useful feature will be some way of confirming the number and
size of files to transfer, so that the base backup client can find out
the progress.
The patch already does
On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 21:58 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I mean, one semi-obvious possibility is to write one set of C
functions that can have multiple SQL-level definitions bound to it.
Then when the function is called, it can peek at flinfo-fn_oid to
figure out which incarnation was called and
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 09:55, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 7.1.2011 15:45, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 02:15, Simon Riggssi...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
One very useful feature will be some way of confirming the number and
size of files to transfer, so that
On 9.1.2011 10:44, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 09:55, Hannu Krosingha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 7.1.2011 15:45, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 02:15, Simon Riggssi...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
One very useful feature will be some way of confirming the
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:05, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 9.1.2011 10:44, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 09:55, Hannu Krosingha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 7.1.2011 15:45, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 02:15, Simon
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 22:21, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
To my way of thinking, pg_stat_walsender and pg_stat_walreceiver would
be more clear than pg_stat_replication_master and
pg_stat_replication_slave.
A resource fork? Not sure what you mean, could you describe it in more
detail?
Ooops, resource forks are a filesystem thing; we call them relation forks.
From src/backend/storage/smgr/README:
Relation Forks
==
Since 8.4, a single smgr relation can be comprised of multiple
2011/1/7 Garick Hamlin gham...@isc.upenn.edu:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 07:47:39PM -0500, Cédric Villemain wrote:
2011/1/5 Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 22:58, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr
wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
* Stefan
On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 12:52 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
One thing I noticed is that it gives an interesting property to my
patch for streaming base backups - they now show up in
pg_stat_replication, with a streaming location of 0/0.
If the view is named pg_stat_replication, we probably
On 09.01.2011 05:06, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Splitting out those three would leave src/backend/ and src/include/
which comes in at a svelte 5891 lines.
With a little more work I could split the three new files
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Properly install gram.h on MSVC builds
This file is now needed by pgAdmin builds, which started
failing since it was missing in the installer builds.
I'd like to protest this patch as misguided. AFAICS it is a *seriously*
bad idea for pgAdmin to be
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 17:31, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Properly install gram.h on MSVC builds
This file is now needed by pgAdmin builds, which started
failing since it was missing in the installer builds.
I'd like to protest this patch as
On 1/5/11 6:19 PM, Florian Pflug wrote:
Sorry, but It isn't too intuitive. Minimally for me. Why you don't
thinking about simple functions with only positive arguments. There
are only four combinations. I don't think we must have only one super
function.
we need functionality for:
a) get first
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 17:31, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'd like to protest this patch as misguided. AFAICS it is a *seriously*
Uh, we install the file on Unix, so we should do the same on Windows.
Well, my idea of how to fix that would be
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 17:49, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 17:31, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'd like to protest this patch as misguided. AFAICS it is a *seriously*
Uh, we install the file on Unix, so we should
In going back through old emails to see what issues might have been
raised but not yet addressed for the SSI patch, I found the subject
issue described in a review by Jeff Davis here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg01159.php
I think this is already handled based on
There's an issue where we don't seem to have consensus yet, so I
figured I'd bounce it off the list.
If the SSI patch were to be accepted as is, REPEATABLE READ would
continue to provide the exact same snapshot isolation behavior which
both it and SERIALIZABLE do through 9.0, and SERIALIZABLE
On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 12:07:49PM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
There's an issue where we don't seem to have consensus yet, so I
figured I'd bounce it off the list.
If the SSI patch were to be accepted as is, REPEATABLE READ would
continue to provide the exact same snapshot isolation
Patching:
patching file doc/src/sgml/func.sgml
Hunk #6 succeeded at 10567 (offset 1 line).
Hunk #7 succeeded at 10621 (offset 1 line).
Hunk #8 succeeded at 10721 (offset 1 line).
Hunk #9 succeeded at 10775 (offset 1 line).
patching file src/backend/nodes/makefuncs.c
patching file
On 09.01.2011 07:05, Tom Lane wrote:
I just found out that the benchmark test script in
contrib/intarray/bench/ crashes HEAD in gistdoinsert() --- it looks like
it's trying to pop to a stack entry that isn't there.
Run it per the instructions in the intarray documentation:
$ createdb TEST
$
hstore's hstore ? text[] operator is defined as contains all, ie,
it will return true if all the key names found in the text array are
present in the hstore.
ISTM that a sane definition of this operator would provide that if the
array is empty, it returns true: every set contains the empty set.
When ALTER TABLE rewrites a table, it reindexes, but the reindex does not
revalidate UNIQUE/EXCLUDE constraints. This behaves badly in cases like this,
neglecting to throw an error on the new UNIQUE violation:
CREATE TABLE t (c numeric UNIQUE);
INSERT INTO t VALUES (1.1),(1.2);
ALTER TABLE t
This patch removes ALTER TYPE rewrites in cases we can already prove valid. I
add a function GetCoerceExemptions() that walks an Expr according to rules
discussed in the design thread, simplified slightly pending additions in the
next patch. See the comment at that function for a refresher. I
Add exemptor functions to avoid rewrites for conversions involving the temporal
data types. I needed a find-last-set function for the interval_scale exemptor
function, so I imported one from FreeBSD. To improve timestamp-timestamptz
when the timezone is UTC/GMT, I compare the current timezone
Add exemptor functions for bit and varbit. These are probably the simplest
examples of the full range of optimizations. I would have used them as the test
case in the initial exemptor function patch if it were a more mainstream use
case.
*** a/src/backend/utils/adt/varbit.c
---
Add an exemptor function for numeric. We store the scale in every datum, making
numeric(7,2)-numeric(8,3) unoptimizable. Precision changes work, though.
*** a/src/backend/utils/adt/numeric.c
--- b/src/backend/utils/adt/numeric.c
***
*** 712,717 numeric_send(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
---
2011/1/7 Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 01:47, Cédric Villemain
cedric.villemain.deb...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/1/5 Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 22:58, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr
wrote:
Magnus Hagander
Whilst fooling around with GIN over the past few days, I noticed the
following rather surprising behavior:
regression=# create table t1 (f1 int[]);
CREATE TABLE
regression=# insert into t1 values (array[42]);
INSERT 0 1
regression=# create index ti1 on t1 using gin (f1);
CREATE INDEX
regression=#
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
If the SSI patch were to be accepted as is, REPEATABLE READ would
continue to provide the exact same snapshot isolation behavior which
both it and SERIALIZABLE do through 9.0, and SERIALIZABLE would
always use SSI on top of the snapshot
On 1/9/11 3:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
1. Do nothing. The issue seems quite unlikely to affect anyone in the
field, since in fact use a seqscan is probably the right answer
anytime reltuples = 1; and anyway using a GIN index for plain equality
is a corner case to begin with. However, it could
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
If the SSI patch were to be accepted as is, REPEATABLE READ would
continue to provide the exact same snapshot isolation behavior which
both it and SERIALIZABLE do through 9.0,
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
or we could hack eqsel() to bound the no-stats estimate to a bit less
than 1.
This seems like a pretty sensible thing to do. I can't immediately
imagine a situation in which 1.0 is a sensible selectivity estimate in
the
On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 04:10:25PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
hstore's hstore ? text[] operator is defined as contains all, ie,
it will return true if all the key names found in the text array are
present in the hstore.
ISTM that a sane definition of this operator would provide that if the
33 matches
Mail list logo
