Fujii Masao wrote:
I'm not necessarily opposed to commandeering the name smart for the
new behavior, so that what we have to find a name for is the old smart
behavior. How about
slow - allow existing sessions to finish (old smart)
smart - allow existing transactions to
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Heh - we already used ERRCODE_CONNECTION_FAILURE on the errors in
copy.c. Since COPY can only happen when
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
A key barrier to migrations from trigger-based replication to WAL-based
replication is the lack of temporary tables under hot standby. I'd like to
close that gap; the changes needed will also reduce the master-side cost of
FYI, I am planning to complete the 9.2 beta release notes by this
Wednesday night, America-time, so developers will have Thursday to make
adjustments before we ship the release notes as part of the beta.
I wanted to complete them sooner, but I also wanted to be current on
email before I started.
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
I think a few more things could removed/simplified after the recent
round of port removal:
- Remove definition of offsetof() in c.h
I see no particular virtue to getting rid of this.
- (Side point, the definition of
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Any further suggestoins for which codes to use? If not, I think I'm
going to commit the patch as I had it, because it's not any worse than
what we had before (but fixes the annoying messages), and we can
always revisit the actual errorcodes later.
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm not necessarily opposed to commandeering the name smart for the
new
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Any further suggestoins for which codes to use? If not, I think I'm
going to commit the patch as I had it, because it's not any worse than
what we had before (but fixes the annoying
Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
This latest revision also covers the checkpointer. The code for that
is far simpler than that for the WAL Writer, so it doesn't
particularly feel like I'm pushing my luck by slipping that into
something to be slipped in.
Well ... maybe, or maybe
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Makes sense, will change and commit.
Since the following hunk is repeated 3x, maybe it should be stuffed
into a function that is then called in three places:
+ if (IsTransactionState())
+
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Makes sense, will change and commit.
Since the following hunk is repeated 3x, maybe it should be stuffed
into a function that is then called in
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 08:46:28PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tor, 2012-05-03 at 15:47 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Peter, where are we on this?
I hadn't received any clear feedback, but if no one objects, I can
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Since the following hunk is repeated 3x, maybe it should be stuffed
into a function that is then called in three places:
I considered it trivial enough not to do that for it. I
On 7 May 2012 18:09, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
This latest revision also covers the checkpointer. The code for that
is far simpler than that for the WAL Writer, so it doesn't
particularly feel like I'm pushing my luck by slipping that into
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 7 May 2012 18:09, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I also notice that the separate-checkpointer patch failed to rename
assorted things like BgWriterCommLock, BgWriterRequest,
BgWriterShmemStruct, which are all 100% inappropriately named now.
And
On 7 May 2012 19:44, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 7 May 2012 18:09, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I also notice that the separate-checkpointer patch failed to rename
assorted things like BgWriterCommLock, BgWriterRequest,
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
It also leaves the situation that we have a catalog view called
pg_stat_bgwriter that would be accessing checkpointer things. That's
really the thorny one that I wasn't sure how to handle. Good example
of why we shouldn't expose internals too much.
On 7 May 2012 20:06, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
It also leaves the situation that we have a catalog view called
pg_stat_bgwriter that would be accessing checkpointer things. That's
really the thorny one that I wasn't sure how to handle. Good
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Armando
armando.mirag...@stud-inf.unibz.it wrote:
Hi everybody.
First of all I have to thank you for your wonderful job! PostgreSQL rocks!
I am writing you because I am interested in understanding some specifics
related
to PostgreSQL internals. More
I spent a significant chunk of my time last week, and also a whole lot
of machine time, trying to evaluate the effectiveness of flushing CLOG
pages to disk in the background. Simon made the last effort in this
area:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-01/msg00571.php
...but we
While researching a problem reported on the -general list by a user who
lost a disk containing his index tablespace, I ran into something, but I'm
not sure is a serious bug or just an inconsistency in how \d shows tables.
Here are the steps I took.
1. Create a new database 'MYDB' and connect
21 matches
Mail list logo
