On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
can't reassign objects owned by %s because this user is internal to
the database system ?
that message is not that clear... it seems to imply i can't reassign
any object from that user...
btw, i'm allowed to use ALTER
On Jun13, 2011, at 05:12 , Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
So I the end, I had to wrap the sub-query in a SQL-language
function and use that in the check constraint. While this
solved my immediate problem, the necessity of doing that
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
(B) There should be a way to use ANY()/ALL() with the
array elements becoming the left arguments of the operator.
FWIW, in case people were unaware, this is getting close to Perl 6
junctions/superpositions. See:
Hello,
I'm new to PostgreSQL and git, but having read through the wiki entries such as
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Submitting_a_Patch, I think I have a patch
worthy of submission.
It's a readability improvement in src/backend/commands/comment.c
(CreateComments function), which changes the
On Jun13, 2011, at 05:44 , Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
(C) Why do we forbid sub-queries in CHECK constraints?
Dunno. Maybe it's just an implementation restriction?
(1) We don't want to
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tis, 2011-05-17 at 14:11 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
The more controversial question is what to do if someone tries to
create such a cast
On 13/06/11 06:38, Greg Smith wrote:
On 06/11/2011 03:21 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
I wouldn't expect IPC chatter to show up in profiling, because it
costs wall time, but not CPU time. The time spent might be attributed
to the kernel, or to pgbench, or to nothing at all.
Profilers aren't
On 06/12/2011 11:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Here is a patch that applies over the reducing the overhead of
frequent table locks (fastlock-v3) patch and allows heavyweight VXID
locks to spring into existence only when someone wants to wait on
them. I believe there is a large benefit to be had
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
For syscache, length of a typical security label in selinux is
less than 64 bytes. If we assume an entry consume 128bytes
including Oid pairs or pointers, its consumption is 128KBytes
per 1,000 of tables or others.
(Do
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:26 AM, richhguard-monot...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Hello,
I'm new to PostgreSQL and git, but having read through the wiki entries such
as http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Submitting_a_Patch, I think I have a patch
worthy of submission.
It's a readability improvement in
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
That might be a start, but it's not a complete replacement for the global
counter. AcceptInvalidationMessages() is actually called in
LockRelationOid(),
but the comparison needs to happen a level up in RangeVarLockRelid().
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
can't reassign objects owned by %s because this user is internal to
the database system ?
that message is not that clear... it seems to
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
on that particular 40cores/80 threads box:
unpatched:
c40:tps = 107689.945323 (including connections establishing)
c80:tps = 101885.549081 (including connections establishing)
fast locks:
c40:tps = 215807.263233 (including connections
2011/6/13 Shigeru Hanada shigeru.han...@gmail.com:
Thanks for the review.
(2011/06/12 13:21), Robert Haas wrote:
2011/6/9 Shigeru Hanadahan...@metrosystems.co.jp:
Attached patch includes fixes for FOREIGN TABLE documents:
I committed the changes to ALTER FOREIGN TABLE, but I think the
On 06/13/2011 02:29 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
on that particular 40cores/80 threads box:
unpatched:
c40:tps = 107689.945323 (including connections establishing)
c80:tps = 101885.549081 (including connections establishing)
fast locks:
c40:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, are you planning to revive the PostgreSQL FDW for 9.2?
That would be a killer feature.
Even more killer would be that it could be built/packaged as an
extension, and use for 9.1 too ;-)
a.
--
Aidan
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, are you planning to revive the PostgreSQL FDW for 9.2?
That would be a killer feature.
Even more killer would be that it could be
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 4:39 AM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tis, 2011-05-17 at 14:11 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
The more
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
There are syntactic reasons not to do that. It'd be a lot easier just
to provide a commutator operator for ~.
Details?
Well, for one, it becomes unobvious what
A op ANY
On 06/12/2011 11:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Here is a patch that applies over the reducing the overhead of
frequent table locks (fastlock-v3) patch and allows heavyweight VXID
locks to spring into existence only when someone wants to wait on
them. I believe there is a large benefit to be had
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
btw, i'm allowed to use ALTER TABLE to assign a new owner (even an
unprivileged one) to a system catalog, probably that's a bug.
+1 for tightening that up in 9.2.
Nonsense.
Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
can't reassign objects owned by %s because this user is internal to
the database system ?
that message is not that clear... it seems to imply i can't reassign
any object
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
btw, i'm allowed to use ALTER TABLE to assign a new owner (even an
unprivileged one) to a system catalog,
On 06/13/2011 01:55 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
[...]
all those tests are done with pgbench running on the same box - which
has a noticable impact on the results because pgbench is using ~1 core
per 8 cores of the backend tested in cpu resoures - though I don't think
it causes any
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:26 AM, richhguard-monot...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
It's a readability improvement in src/backend/commands/comment.c
(CreateComments function), which changes the existing code from incrementing
a variable for use as the array
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
On Jun13, 2011, at 05:12 , Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
So I the end, I had to wrap the sub-query in a SQL-language
function and use that in the check constraint. While
On 06/13/2011 09:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Jaime Casanovaja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
btw, i'm allowed to use ALTER TABLE to assign a new owner (even an
unprivileged one) to a system catalog, probably that's a bug.
+1
On 06/13/2011 10:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Some languages use =~ and some use just ~... I was just
wondering if anyone thought the commutator of =~ was ~=...
My feeling is it's a bit dangerous. It's too easy to fat-finger the
reverse op, and get something quite unintended.
cheers
andrew
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, are you planning to revive the PostgreSQL FDW for 9.2?
That would be a killer feature.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, are you planning to
Stefan Kaltenbrunner ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc writes:
On 06/12/2011 11:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Profiling reveals that the system spends enormous amounts of CPU time
in s_lock.
just to reiterate that with numbers - at 160 threads with both patches
applied the profile looks like:
samples
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Don't hold your breath. We'll probably be making enough changes in the
FDW infrastructure (particularly planner support) that making an FDW
work on both 9.1 and 9.2 would be an exercise in
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
btw, i'm allowed to use ALTER TABLE to assign a new owner (even an
unprivileged one) to a system catalog,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Don't hold your breath. We'll probably be making enough changes in the
FDW infrastructure (particularly planner support)
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc writes:
On 06/12/2011 11:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Profiling reveals that the system spends enormous amounts of CPU time
in s_lock.
just to reiterate that with numbers - at 160
I wrote:
Historically this i++ approach has been used in a lot of places that
fill in system catalog tuples. We've fixed some of them over
time, but I doubt this is the only one remaining. If we're going
to try to remove it here, maybe we ought to try to fix them all
rather than just this
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:11 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
I fully agree. That said, if this works on the standby, we may as well also
use
it opportunistically on the master, to throttle bloat.
As long as
On Jun 11, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
This is at least a use-case for something^Wfeature like 'create
synonym', allowing smooth end-user's application upgrade on schema
update. I am not claiming that we need that, it just seems a good
usecase for column alias/synonym.
I had the
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, are you planning to
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
On Jun 11, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
This is at least a use-case for something^Wfeature like 'create
synonym', allowing smooth end-user's application upgrade on schema
update. I am not claiming that we need that, it
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Oh, that's by no means a waste of time --- we need some examples to help
us figure out where the pain points are. I'm just saying that the best
ways to do things will probably change quite
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 03:39:39AM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tis, 2011-05-17 at 14:11 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
wrote:
The more
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of sáb jun 11 21:01:55 -0400 2011:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
on shdepReassignOwned() we have this message, which is obviously wrong
we are not dropping objects just reassigning them...
On 06/13/2011 10:25 AM, Dave Page wrote:
Don't hold your breath. We'll probably be making enough changes in the
FDW infrastructure (particularly planner support) that making an FDW
work on both 9.1 and 9.2 would be an exercise in frustration, if it's
even possible.
Oh joy. There's a GSoC
On Jun 13, 2011, at 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
A synonym feature would definitely be useful for cases like this. We have a
poorly named database at work; it's been that way for years and the only
reason it's never been cleaned up is because it would require simultaneously
changing config
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:10:34AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:22:59PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 01:56:22PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 12.03.2011 12:40, Noah Misch
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 09:01:45AM +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
Hm, that's less bulky but more kludgy, I'd say. But wait a minute...
If ANY and ALL are reserved anyway, should it be possible to
make (ANY(..) op expr) and (ALL(...) op expr)
work grammar-wise? (Note the enclosing parens)
This
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 06/13/2011 10:25 AM, Dave Page wrote:
Don't hold your breath. We'll probably be making enough changes in the
FDW infrastructure (particularly planner support) that making an FDW
work on both 9.1 and 9.2 would be
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
On 6/11/2011 1:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
There is a difference between a project name and something that directly
affects usability. +1
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
Yeah - MySQL is one of the ones I've been hacking on. It's hard to be
motivated if its going to need a complete rewrite within a year
though. I'll still have to work on it, as I've committed to giving
talks on it, but others
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of sáb jun 11 21:01:55 -0400 2011:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
on shdepReassignOwned() we have this message, which is obviously
2011/6/13 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
For syscache, length of a typical security label in selinux is
less than 64 bytes. If we assume an entry consume 128bytes
including Oid pairs or pointers, its consumption is
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wrote:
Historically this i++ approach has been used in a lot of places that
fill in system catalog tuples. We've fixed some of them over
time, but I doubt this is the only one remaining. If we're going
to try to remove
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
+1
If we were going to make changes like this, I'd suggest we save them
up in a big bag for when we change major version number. Everybody in
the world thinks that PostgreSQL v8 is compatible across all versions
(8.0,
Thanks Bob for your lead. I was finally able to solve my issue. I had
earlier installed the binary version of postgresql. As I had to compile
certain contrib/modules sometime back, I had chosen to set USE PGXS=1 in my
.zshrc file. This was causing these errors. It was silly mistake from my
end.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
Yeah - MySQL is one of the ones I've been hacking on. It's hard to be
motivated if its going to need a complete rewrite within a year
though. I'll still
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Christopher Browne cbbro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
Yeah - MySQL is one of the ones I've been hacking on. It's hard to be
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Christopher Browne cbbro...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
Yeah
Hi,
Drs. Jeffrey Carver, Rosanna Guadagno, Debra McCallum, and Mr. Amiangshu
Bosu, University of Alabama, and Dr. Lorin Hochstein, University of
Southern California, are conducting a survey of open-source software
developers. This survey seeks to understand how developers on distributed,
virtual
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
The attached patch is an update revision of security label support
for shared database objects.
I'm kind of unexcited about this whole idea. Adding a shared catalog
for a feature that's only of interest to a small
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
On 6/11/2011 1:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
There is a difference between a project name and something that
2011/6/13 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
The attached patch is an update revision of security label support
for shared database objects.
I'm kind of unexcited about this whole idea. Adding a shared catalog
for a
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
BTW; it seems to me this should be documented, as it could really hack
off developers. I can't see anything in the docs to imply the API
might be radically redesigned.
And I'm still
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
BTW; it seems to me this should be documented, as it could really hack
off developers. I can't see anything in the
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
BTW; it seems to me this should be documented, as it could really hack
off developers. I can't see anything in the
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
2011/6/13 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
The attached patch is an update revision of security label support
for shared database objects.
I'm
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I think we're talking past each other.
Hmm, I wonder if you're correct (as usual :-p). I thought you were
talking about the API as defined here:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
But my point is: any FDW code Dave rights now is not going to have
major dependencies on the planner that will potentially require
extensive reworking in the future because it won't have any real
dependencies on the planner at all. It's not like we
Hackers,
As a reminder, CommitFest 1 for PostgreSQL 9.2 development starts in
less than two days.
If you have a patch for 9.2 which is ready for review, please add it to
the commitfest application right now.
Thanks!
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via
Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Did the system create the .git/config '[branch REL9_1_STABLE]' section
for you or did you create it manually?
git created them for me. ?I
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
As a reminder, CommitFest 1 for PostgreSQL 9.2 development starts in
less than two days.
If you have a patch for 9.2 which is ready for review, please add it to
the commitfest application right now.
You forgot part #2:
So I finally started actually reading the SSI changes, and I am a tad
distressed by this:
diff --git a/src/include/access/twophase_rmgr.h
b/src/include/access/twophase_rmgr.h
index a541d0f..1c7d8bb 100644
--- a/src/include/access/twophase_rmgr.h
+++ b/src/include/access/twophase_rmgr.h
@@ -23,8
2011/6/13 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
2011/6/13 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
The attached patch is an update revision of security
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
But my point is: any FDW code Dave rights now is not going to have
major dependencies on the planner that will potentially require
extensive reworking in the future because it won't have any real
dependencies on the
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
If the data type is hashable, you could consider building a hash table
on the MCVs and then do a probe for each element in the array. I
think that's better than the other way around because there can't be
more than 10k
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
What was the rationale for changing the assignments of existing
2PC IDs? So far as I can tell, that breaks pg_upgrade (if there
are any open prepared transactions) for no redeeming social
benefit. Is there a reason why TWOPHASE_RM_PREDICATELOCK_ID has
to
On 13.06.2011 21:31, Tom Lane wrote:
So I finally started actually reading the SSI changes, and I am a tad
distressed by this:
diff --git a/src/include/access/twophase_rmgr.h
b/src/include/access/twophase_rmgr.h
index a541d0f..1c7d8bb 100644
--- a/src/include/access/twophase_rmgr.h
+++
On ons, 2011-06-08 at 10:14 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
But then you lose the ability to evaluate user-supplied
XPath expressions, because there's no way of telling which of these
function to use.
Perhaps having both variants, one type-safe and one not, would work. I
don't agree with doing
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:22:19PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
As far as I can tell it was for purely cosmetic reasons, to have lock
and predicate lock lines together.
Yes, that is the only reason.
Dan
--
Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAILhttp://drkp.net/
--
Sent
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
On 13.06.2011 21:31, Tom Lane wrote:
So far as I can tell, that breaks pg_upgrade (if there are any open
prepared transactions) for no redeeming social benefit.
Surely pg_upgrade can't work anyway if there's any open prepared
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
I've already implemented some simple qual pushdown in the redis FDW,
and am planning to do something similar for MySQL - however I won't be
surprised if I have to rewrite redisGetQual in
https://github.com/dpage/redis_fdw/blob/master/redis_fdw.c for
Surely we don't need parse.pl and parse2.pl? parse.pl, the one that's
not used, it already showing signs of semi-bit-rot:
Use of assignment to $[ is deprecated at ./parse.pl line 21.
I propose that we move parse2.pl to parse.pl and only keep the one.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On 6/13/11 11:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
As a reminder, CommitFest 1 for PostgreSQL 9.2 development starts in
less than two days.
If you have a patch for 9.2 which is ready for review, please add it to
the commitfest
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 08:21:05AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
This probably would not replace a backend-local counter of processed
messages
for RangeVarLockRelid()'s purposes. ?It's quite possibly a good way to
reduce
On 06/13/2011 02:26 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I found the cause. When I added 'github' to ~/.gitconfig a few months
ago, I copied this line from .git/config:
fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
If this line is in ~/.gitconfig for both 'origin' and 'github', git
cannot create
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
Surely we don't need parse.pl and parse2.pl? parse.pl, the one that's
not used, it already showing signs of semi-bit-rot:
Use of assignment to $[ is deprecated at ./parse.pl line 21.
I propose that we move parse2.pl to parse.pl and only keep the one.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 03:33:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
We can either change that now, or undo the
unnecessary change in existing RM IDs. I vote for the latter.
Sounds good to me. I'd offer a patch, but it'd probably take you longer
to apply than to make the change yourself.
Dan
--
Dan R.
I was reading the partitioning docs when I spotted this. I think it means to
highlight the advantages of DROP TABLE over DELETE rather than ALTER TABLE.
Best,
David
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml
index 4c9fc5d..0cdb800 100644
*** a/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml
---
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun jun 13 09:57:50 -0400 2011:
Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
can't reassign objects owned by %s because this user is internal to
the database system ?
that
Excerpts from Dean Rasheed's message of sáb jun 11 09:32:15 -0400 2011:
On 1 June 2011 23:47, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Here's a complete patch with all this stuff, plus doc additions and
simple regression tests for the new ALTER DOMAIN commands.
Enable CHECK
Alvaro, Dean,
I think that you also need to update the constraint exclusion code
(get_relation_constraints() or nearby), otherwise the planner might
exclude a relation on the basis of a CHECK constraint that is not
currently VALID.
Ouch, yeah, thanks for pointing that out. Fortunately
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 06/13/2011 02:26 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I found the cause. When I added 'github' to ~/.gitconfig a few months
ago, I copied this line from .git/config:
fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
If this line is in ~/.gitconfig for both 'origin' and
On 06/13/2011 06:38 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 06/13/2011 02:26 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I found the cause. When I added 'github' to ~/.gitconfig a few months
ago, I copied this line from .git/config:
fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
If this line
I can see why you would want that, but I'd say that's a separate feature
you need to explicitly request when creating the constraint. Consider
what happens in the old data is garbage, but I want the new data to be
validated use case if we allow constraint exclusion on NOT VALID
constraints.
On 14/06/2011 01:11, Josh Berkus wrote:
Hmmm. Is this the behavior we want with NOT VALID constraints though?
I know that if I'm pouring 100m rows into a new partition as part of a
repartitioning scheme, I don't want to *ever* check them if I know
they're correct because of how I created the
Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
Note that this restriction was removed in postgres 9.1 which
is currently in beta. However, GIT indices must be re-created
with REINDEX after upgrading from 9.0 to leverage that
improvement.
Does
I looked into $SUBJECT. There appear to be two distinct issues:
1. On colugos (OS X with LLVM), the plperl link step is spitting up
because Apple's ExtUtils::Embed puts some -arch switches into
perl_embed_ldflags. We found out about that some time ago, and fixed
it for 9.0 and up here:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Profiling reveals that the system spends enormous amounts of CPU time
in s_lock. LWLOCK_STATS reveals that the only lwlock with significant
amounts of blocking is the BufFreelistLock;
This is curious. Clearly the
On 06/13/2011 08:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I looked into $SUBJECT. There appear to be two distinct issues:
1. On colugos (OS X with LLVM), the plperl link step is spitting up
because Apple's ExtUtils::Embed puts some -arch switches into
perl_embed_ldflags. We found out about that some time
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc wrote:
...
so it seems that sysbench is actually significantly less overhead than
pgbench and the lower throughput at the higher conncurency seems to be
cause by sysbench being able to stress the backend even more
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
