On 2011-03-22 21:43, Robert Haas wrote:
I took a crack at implementing the first approach described above,
which seems to be by far the simplest idea we've come up with to date.
Patch attached. It doesn't seem to be that complicated, which could
mean either that it's not that complicated or
All operations that clear the bit area are already WAL-logged.
Is it the case with visibility map also?
Thanks.
On 03/22/2011 09:33 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
We might have a version of synchronous replication that works this way
some day, but it's not the version were shipping with 9.1. The slave
acknowledges the WAL records when they hit the disk (i.e. fsync) not
when they are applied; WAL apply can lag
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
You could also argue for log a warning, continue until we can open for Hot
standby, then pause.
I don't like that one much.
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
* Smart shutdown
Smart shutdown should wait for all the waiting
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 01:02, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I studied the code some more, and I think this probably can be made to
work. The basic idea is to have preprocess_minmax_aggregates build
simplified queries like the above (working by modifying the query tree
that exists at the
On 16.03.2011 11:11, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Fujii Masaomasao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. I'll change the patch.
Done. I attached the updated patch.
I don't much like the API for this. Walsender shouldn't need to know
about the details of the FE/BE protocol,
On 23.03.2011 01:36, aaronenabs wrote:
Can anyone help me, i am trying to carry out an investigation
which involves accessing dead tuples within the postgresql.
I have been advised i could write a script that allows me to
examine dead tuples and am seeking advise on how to achieve this,
or
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:51 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
You could also argue for log a warning, continue
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch wrote:
On 03/22/2011 09:33 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
We might have a version of synchronous replication that works this way
some day, but it's not the version were shipping with 9.1. The slave
acknowledges the WAL records when they
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Erik Rijkers e...@xs4all.nl wrote:
This is OK and expected. But then it continues (in the logfile) with:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram
gokul...@gmail.com wrote:
All operations that clear the bit area are already WAL-logged.
Is it the case with visibility map also?
Thanks.
Yes. Look at the comment that the patch removes. That describes the
problem being fixed.
--
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Jesper Krogh jes...@krogh.cc wrote:
On 2011-03-22 21:43, Robert Haas wrote:
I took a crack at implementing the first approach described above,
which seems to be by far the simplest idea we've come up with to date.
Patch attached. It doesn't seem to be that
On 03/23/2011 12:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Yes. What this won't do is let you build a big load-balancing network
(at least not without great caution about what you assume).
This sounds too strong to me. Session-aware load balancing is pretty
common these days. It's the default mode of
Hi,
I did a preliminary part of the functions for copy / paste object and now
I expect confirmation that the implementation is correct.
Changed files:
frm/frmMain.cpp, nclude/frm/frmMain.h
New files:
frm/frmPasteObject.cpp, include/frm/frmPasteObject.h
Best regards,
Vladimir Kokovic, DP
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:51 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
Hi,
When I read the shutdown code to create the smart shutdown patch for sync rep,
I found the corner case where shutdown can get stuck infinitely. This happens
when postmaster reaches PM_WAIT_BACKENDS state before walsender marks
itself as WAL sender process for streaming WAL (i.e., before
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Jesper Krogh jes...@krogh.cc wrote:
On 2011-03-22 21:43, Robert Haas wrote:
I took a crack at implementing the first approach described above,
which seems to be by far the simplest idea we've come up with to date.
Patch attached. It doesn't seem to be that
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Actually, my previous email was all nonsense, wasn't it? If we don't
reach the consistency point, we can't enter normal running anyway -
shut down is the only option no matter what.
Presumably you mean that the way its
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch wrote:
On 03/23/2011 12:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Yes. What this won't do is let you build a big load-balancing network
(at least not without great caution about what you assume).
This sounds too strong to me. Session-aware
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I agree to get rid of write_location.
No, don't remove it.
We seem to be just looking for things to tweak without any purpose.
Removing this
Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com Monday 21 March 2011 20:58:16
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com
wrote:
Can't you make just one large mapping and lock it in 8k regions? I
thought the
Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com Tuesday 22 March 2011 23:06:02
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Radosław Smogura
rsmog...@softperience.eu wrote:
Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com Monday 21 March 2011 20:58:16
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu wrote:
On
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:44 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
guilla...@lelarge.info wrote:
While working on adding support for SQL/Med objects to pgAdmin, I'm
quite surprised to see there is no way to add comments to SQL/Med
objects. Is this on purpose or is it just something that was simply missed?
I
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I agree to get rid of write_location.
No, don't remove it.
We seem to
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Specifically, if we're not going to remove write location, then I
think we need to apply something like the attached.
while (walrcv_receive(0, type, buf, len))
XLogWalRcvProcessMsg(type, buf, len);
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
guilla...@lelarge.info wrote:
While working on adding support for SQL/Med objects to pgAdmin, I'm
quite surprised to see there is no way to add comments to SQL/Med
objects. Is this on purpose or is it
Le 23/03/2011 17:53, Tom Lane a écrit :
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
guilla...@lelarge.info wrote:
While working on adding support for SQL/Med objects to pgAdmin, I'm
quite surprised to see there is no way to add comments to
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Specifically, if we're not going to remove write location, then I
think we need to apply something like the attached.
The protocol supports different write/fsync values, so the view should
display them.
That's exactly
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Specifically, if we're not going to remove write location, then I
think we need to apply something like the attached.
while (walrcv_receive(0, type, buf, len))
On Mar 22, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Maybe the
Hello Bernd,
On 21.03.2011 18:44, Bernd Helmle wrote:
Attached minor patch extends \dt to use pg_table_size() starting with
PostgreSQL 9.0, not sure if we backport such changes though. It would
be interesting for 9.1, however.
As I already told you:
I tested and it worked.
The code looks
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Specifically, if we're not going to remove write location, then I
think
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
When we started using 192G servers we tried switching our largest OLTP
database (would have been about 1.2TB at the time) from 8GB shared buffers to
28GB. Performance went down enough to notice; I don't have any solid metrics,
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
In any case, that's not the only argument for keeping it. We introduce
the view in this release and I would like it to stay the same from
now, since we know we will need that info later.
At least as I understand it, it's
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de wrote:
It stroke me today again, that \dt+ isn't displaying the acurate table size
for tables, since it uses pg_relation_size() till now. With having
pg_table_size() since PostgreSQL 9.0 available, i believe it would be more
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
It looks like the only way anything can ever get put on the free list
right now is if a relation or database is dropped. That doesn't seem
too good. I wonder if the background writer shouldn't be trying to
maintain the
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
In any case, that's not the only argument for keeping it. We introduce
the view in this release and I would like it to stay the same from
now,
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié mar 23 17:24:59 -0300 2011:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de wrote:
It stroke me today again, that \dt+ isn't displaying the acurate table size
for tables, since it uses pg_relation_size() till now. With having
Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu Wednesday 23 March 2011 21:30:04
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
It looks like the only way anything can ever get put on the free list
right now is if a relation or database is dropped. That doesn't seem
too good. I
2011/3/23 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié mar 23 17:24:59 -0300 2011:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de wrote:
It stroke me today again, that \dt+ isn't displaying the acurate table size
for tables, since
Hi,
The first PostgreSQL Session organized by Dalibo last february was
a big success. More than 80 public and private participants gathered in
Paris.
Dalibo and Oslandia want to carry on this success and set up a
new conference day dedicated to PostGIS, on June 23d in Paris.
I found a problem that extension.c does not invoke post-creation hook
on its creation time, although no module supports to assign security
label on extension objects right now.
The attached patch tries to fix it.
Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei kai...@kaigai.gr.jp
pgsql-extension-hook.patch
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
It looks like the only way anything can ever get put on the free list
right now is if a relation or database is dropped. That doesn't seem
too good.
Why not? AIUI the free list is only for buffers that are totally dead,
ie contain no info that's
Hi,
I'm looking for the history of pg_exec_query_string() and found that
it dissapear in 7.4, so i tried to look at git log to find out if it
was renamed or removed completely and found only this 3 commits:
2011/3/23 Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com:
Hi,
I'm looking for the history of pg_exec_query_string() and found that
it dissapear in 7.4, so i tried to look at git log to find out if it
was renamed or removed completely and found only this 3 commits:
I'm building some partitioning support functions. I'm working on writing one
called clone_indexes_to_partition right now. The idea is to take all the
indexes applied to the parent and create a matching index on the child. Is
there existing code that generates a CREATE INDEX statement given an
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Cédric Villemain
cedric.villemain.deb...@gmail.com wrote:
This :
git log --pretty=oneline -S'pg_exec_query_string' origin/REL7_4_STABLE
git show de28dc9a04c4df5d711815b7a518501b43535a26
give me the answer :
ah! ok, so the problema was the way i was asking
2011/3/24 Andrew Hammond andrew.george.hamm...@gmail.com:
I'm building some partitioning support functions. I'm working on writing one
called clone_indexes_to_partition right now. The idea is to take all the
indexes applied to the parent and create a matching index on the child. Is
there
Andrew Hammond andrew.george.hamm...@gmail.com writes:
I'm building some partitioning support functions. I'm working on writing one
called clone_indexes_to_partition right now. The idea is to take all the
indexes applied to the parent and create a matching index on the child. Is
there existing
Yeah. i looked at it. I don't think it addresses the problem raised here.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-02/msg02097.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-02/msg02097.phpOr may be
i am missing something.
Thanks.
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Robert Haas
53 matches
Mail list logo
