On 26 January 2013 10:58, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
updated patches due changes for better variadic any function.
apply fix_mixing_positinal_ordered_placeholders_warnings_20130126.patch first
Hi,
No one is listed as a reviewer for this patch so I thought I would
take a
On 23.01.2013 17:30, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Jeevan Chalke
jeevan.cha...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
I guess my earlier patch, which was directly incrementing
ControlFile-unloggedLSN counter was the concern as it will take
ControlFileLock several times.
In this version
On 26.01.2013 23:44, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 01:54:06PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 1/12/13 3:30 PM, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
The Linux Standard Base Core Specification 3.1 says this should return
'3'. [1]
[1]
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 6:22 PM Magnus Hagander
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:02 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 07.01.2013 16:23,
On 24.01.2013 00:30, Andres Freund wrote:
Also, while the apply side surely isn't benchmarkable without any being
submitted, the changeset generation can very well be benchmarked.
A very, very adhoc benchmark:
-c max_wal_senders=10
-c max_logical_slots=10 --disabled for anything but logical
On 2013-01-27 07:54:43 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
On 2013-01-25 13:48:50 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
As far as I understand that code its purpose is to enforce that all
potential users have an up2date
On 2013-01-26 16:20:33 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
On 13-01-24 11:15 AM, Steve Singer wrote:
On 13-01-24 06:40 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Fair enough. I am also working on a user of this infrastructure but that
doesn't help you very much. Steve Singer seemed to make some stabs at
writing an
While testing Alexander's gistchoose patch, perf report showed that
the test case spent a surprisingly large amount of CPU time in
ExecScanHashBucket. That function just scans a hash bucket for matches,
and it should be very quick as long as there are not many collisions.
It turns out that
Hi Marko,
I could not apply the patch with git apply, but able to apply it by patch
-p1 command.
However, will you please justify the changes done in xml.out ? I guess
they are not needed.
You might need to configure your sources with libxml.
Also, I am not sure about putting
Hi,
On 2013-01-27 23:07:51 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
A few more comments;
In decode.c DecodeDelete
+ if (r-xl_len = (SizeOfHeapDelete + SizeOfHeapHeader))
+ {
+ elog(DEBUG2, huh, no primary key for a delete on wal_level =
logical?);
+ return;
+ }
+
I think we
On 2013-01-27 12:28:21 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
On 13-01-22 11:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
I pushed a new rebased version (the xlogreader commit made it annoying
to merge).
The main improvements are
* way much coherent code internally for intializing logical rep
* explicit control
On 1/28/13 12:14 PM, Jeevan Chalke wrote:
I could not apply the patch with git apply, but able to apply it by patch
-p1 command.
IME that's normal for patches that went through filterdiff. I do: git
diff |filterdiff --format=context to re-format the patches to the
context diff preferred on
On 2013-01-28 11:59:52 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 24.01.2013 00:30, Andres Freund wrote:
Also, while the apply side surely isn't benchmarkable without any being
submitted, the changeset generation can very well be benchmarked.
A very, very adhoc benchmark:
-c max_wal_senders=10
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
On 2013-01-27 07:54:43 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding how this part works a bit. We don't
acquire locks on the table itself, but we get a list of all transactions
we would conflict with
On 28/01/13 12:31, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
On 1/28/13 12:14 PM, Jeevan Chalke wrote:
I could not apply the patch with git apply, but able to apply it by patch
-p1 command.
IME that's normal for patches that went through filterdiff. I do: git
diff |filterdiff --format=context to re-format the
Hi,
On 2013-01-28 20:31:48 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
On 2013-01-27 07:54:43 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding how this part works a bit. We don't
acquire locks on the table itself,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
Another argument that would be enough for a rejection of this patch by a
committer is the problem of invalid toast indexes that cannot be removed
up
cleanly by an operator. As long as there is not a clean solution for
On 2013-01-28 20:50:21 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
Another argument that would be enough for a rejection of this patch by a
committer is the problem of invalid toast indexes that cannot be removed
up
cleanly
Hi,
I have tried other sources but to no avail. Could someone please tell me which
tables in pg_catalog are effected by creating or dropping a trigger. If there
is a work flow diagram or source code location you want to point me to rather
than listing them that will be fine also. Some plonker
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Graham Little graham.lit...@aspone.co.uk
wrote:
Hi,
I have tried other sources but to no avail. Could someone please tell me
which tables in pg_catalog
are effected by creating or dropping a trigger. If there is a work flow
diagram or source code location
So I think we need to sort by age(relfrozenxid) in tables that are over
the anti-wraparound limit. Given your code that doesn't seem to be that
hard?
I might also suggest that we think about changing the defaults for
wraparound vacuum behavior. Partcularly, the fact that
On 15.01.2013 21:03, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On the third hand, the fact that a table is OCDR is recorded in
backend-local storage somewhere, and that storage (unlike the
relcache) had better be reliable. So maybe there's some way to
finesse it that way.
Hm,
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
You're the second commentator to be skittish about the patch's correctness, so
I won't argue against a conservatism-motivated bounce of the patch.
Can you please rebase the patch against the latest head ? I see
Alvaro's and
On 2013-01-29 00:11:12 +1100, Josh Berkus wrote:
So I think we need to sort by age(relfrozenxid) in tables that are over
the anti-wraparound limit. Given your code that doesn't seem to be that
hard?
I might also suggest that we think about changing the defaults for
wraparound vacuum
On 23 January 2013 04:35, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Also, perhaps we should
consider Simon's one-liner fix for backpatching this instead of the
original patch you posted?
I have no nontrivial preference between the two approaches.
Sorry, I didn't see this. I guess you saw I
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 04:48:56AM +, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 28 January 2013 03:34, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Would you commit to the same git repository the pgbench-tools data for the
graphs appearing in that blog post? I couldn't readily tell what was
happening below 16
On Saturday, January 19, 2013 11:23 AM Amit kapila wrote:
On Saturday, January 19, 2013 4:13 AM Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
Hi,
Unfortunately, I won't have time to do anything with my lock_timeout
patch
for about 3 weeks. Does anyone have a little spare time to test it on
Windows?
I shall try
Fabrizio,
Thank you very much for your email, I was able to run a script to generate
update statements to the tables you mentioned and this has fixed my problem for
me.
select'UPDATE pg_catalog.pg_class SET reltriggers=' || b.reltriggers-1 || '
WHERE relname=' || || a.table_name ||
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
On 2013-01-28 20:50:21 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de
wrote:
Another argument that would be enough for a rejection of this patch
by a
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Not sure if that LSB section is relevant anyway. It specifies the
exit codes for init scripts, but pg_ctl is not an init script.
Except that when I went to the trouble of wrapping pg_ctl with an
init script which was thoroughly LSB compliant
On 28 January 2013 10:47, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
There's also some overhead from empty
buckets when scanning the hash table
Seems like we should measure that overhead. That way we can plot the
cost against number per bucket, which sounds like it has a minima at
1.0,
On 1/26/13 4:44 PM, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
You are right. Had I read a little further down, it seems that the
exit status should actually be 7.
7 is OK for not running, but what should we use when the server is not
in standby mode? Using the idempotent argument that we are discussing
for the
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com writes:
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Not sure if that LSB section is relevant anyway. It specifies the
exit codes for init scripts, but pg_ctl is not an init script.
Except that when I went to the trouble of wrapping pg_ctl with an
init
On 1/26/13 1:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
[ pokes around... ] Hm, it appears that that does work on Linux,
because for some reason we're specifying RTLD_GLOBAL to dlopen().
TBH that seems like a truly horrid idea that we should reconsider.
Aside from the danger of unexpected symbol collisions
I am working on reviewing the patch. Patch apply without warning/error on
master branch. My findings are as following i.e.
1. Behavior change in pg_ctl return value i.e.
*
*
* Server already running*
a. Without Patch
inst asif$ ./bin/pg_ctl -D data_test/ -l data_test.log start
pg_ctl:
On 01/28/2013 10:11 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 1/26/13 1:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
[ pokes around... ] Hm, it appears that that does work on Linux,
because for some reason we're specifying RTLD_GLOBAL to dlopen().
TBH that seems like a truly horrid idea that we should reconsider.
Aside from
On 14 January 2013 15:29, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
Here is a patch to add an option -I/--idempotent to pg_ctl, the result
of which is that pg_ctl doesn't error on start or stop if the server is
already running
Hello
2013/1/28 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
On 26 January 2013 10:58, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
updated patches due changes for better variadic any function.
apply fix_mixing_positinal_ordered_placeholders_warnings_20130126.patch first
Hi,
No one is listed
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-01-29 00:11:12 +1100, Josh Berkus wrote:
So I think we need to sort by age(relfrozenxid) in tables that
are over the anti-wraparound limit. Given your code that
doesn't seem to be that hard?
I might also suggest that we think about
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Phil Sorber p...@omniti.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Phil Sorber p...@omniti.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Phil Sorber p...@omniti.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24,
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2013/1/28 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
Starting with the first patch - it issues a new WARNING if the format
string contains a mixture of format specifiers with and without
parameter indexes (e.g., 'Hello %s, %1$s').
Having thought
On 2013-01-28 08:15:29 -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-01-29 00:11:12 +1100, Josh Berkus wrote:
So I think we need to sort by age(relfrozenxid) in tables that
are over the anti-wraparound limit. Given your code that
doesn't seem to be
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe. But I'm not inclined to add new libpq interface at this stage.
Because we are in the last CommitFest and I'm not sure whether
we have enough time to implement that. Instead, how about using
both PQconninfoParse()
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
The first question is, why do we aim at 10 tuples per bucket?
I see nothing particularly wrong with that. The problem here is with
having 1000 tuples per bucket.
Ideally, the planner would always make a good guess the number of rows,
but
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
Please find attached a new version of the patch, answering to most of
your reviewing points. I'll post another version shortly with support
for pg_dump and alter owner/rename.
So, as far as pg_dump is concerned, I have a trick question here.
We
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Both. If we had done this when we first implemented format(), it'd be
fine, but it's too late to change it now. There very likely are
applications out there that depend on the current behavior. As Dean
says, it's not incompatible with SUS, just a
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.comwrote:
Now I'm working on additional comments.
Some comments were added for addKey and addArc(s). I hope they clarify
something.
--
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.
trgm-regexp-0.12.patch.gz
Description: GNU
A couple more things about this patch ...
I went back through the thread and reviewed all the angst about which
fields to provide, especially whether we need CONSTRAINT_SCHEMA.
I agree with the conclusion that we don't. It's in the spec because
the spec supposes that
Phil Sorber escribió:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe. But I'm not inclined to add new libpq interface at this stage.
Because we are in the last CommitFest and I'm not sure whether
we have enough time to implement that. Instead, how about
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Phil Sorber escribió:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe. But I'm not inclined to add new libpq interface at this stage.
Because we are in the last CommitFest and I'm
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
Now that I've written this in that email, I think I'm going to go for
the new command. But maybe we have some precedent for objects that we
list in pg_dump only for solving several steps dependency lookups?
Yes, pg_dump has lots of objects that
hi,
I'm less optimistic on the NetBSD front: even though I reported major
show-stopper bugs (system died under load and was unable to complete
a pgbench run), no one seemed to care.
can you give me a pointer?
YAMAMOTO Takashi
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 03:27:28PM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
can you give me a pointer?
This bug report for a start:
http://gnats.netbsd.org/cgi-bin/query-pr-single.pl?number=46833
This is the only one I've filled; I also remember having irc discussions
with some netbsd developers
2013/1/28 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
A couple more things about this patch ...
I went back through the thread and reviewed all the angst about which
fields to provide, especially whether we need CONSTRAINT_SCHEMA.
I agree with the conclusion that we don't. It's in the spec because
the
Hello
2013/1/26 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
+1. This looks quite nifty. Maybe useful too to have a default prefix
via some setting.
Meh. I would expect that \gset :foo would work to specify a computed
prefix if you wanted it --- isn't that
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2013/1/28 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
... The current patch provides sufficient
information to uniquely identify a table constraint, but not so much
domain constraints. Should we fix that? I think it'd be legitimate
to re-use SCHEMA_NAME for
2013/1/28 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2013/1/28 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
... The current patch provides sufficient
information to uniquely identify a table constraint, but not so much
domain constraints. Should we fix that? I think it'd be
On 28 January 2013 17:32, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Both. If we had done this when we first implemented format(), it'd be
fine, but it's too late to change it now. There very likely are
applications out there that depend on the current
2013/1/28 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
On 28 January 2013 17:32, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Both. If we had done this when we first implemented format(), it'd be
fine, but it's too late to change it now. There very likely are
On 28 January 2013 20:40, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/1/28 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
On 28 January 2013 17:32, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Both. If we had done this when we first implemented format(), it'd
Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com writes:
On 28 January 2013 20:40, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/1/28 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
flags - not currently implemented. Pavel's second patch adds support
for the '-' flag for left justified string output. However,
On 28.01.2013 15:39, Amit Kapila wrote:
Rebased the patch as per HEAD.
I don't like the way heap_delta_encode has intimate knowledge of how the
lz compression works. It feels like a violent punch through the
abstraction layers.
Ideally, you would just pass the old and new tuple to pglz as
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Satoshi Nagayasu sn...@uptime.jp wrote:
Hi,
I have reviewed this patch.
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1068
2012/12/21 Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com:
The patch is very much what you had posted, except for a couple of
On 1/5/13 12:48 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
is there agreement of routine_name and trigger_name fields?
Well, Tom and I are both opposed to including those fields. Peter E
seemed to support it in some way, but didn't respond to Tom's
criticisms (which were just a restatement of my own). So, it
On 13-01-28 06:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
3. Pass the delete (with no key values) onto the replication client and let
it deal with it (see 1 and 2)
Hm.
While I agree that nicer behaviour would be good I think the real
enforcement should happen on a higher level, e.g. with event triggers
On 28 January 2013 21:33, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
Another point, in case someone wants to revisit this in the future, is
that these fields were applied in a way that is contrary to the SQL
standard, I think.
The presented patch interpreted ROUTINE_NAME as: the error happened
On 13-01-28 06:23 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
The CF is also there to find UI warts and such, so something like this
seems perfectly fine. Even moreso as it doesn't look this will get
into 9.3 anyway. I wanted to add such an option, but I was too
lazy^Wbusy to think about the sematics. Your
On 01/26/2013 12:14 PM, Anderson C. Carniel wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to build a. dll file to extend the postgres server with C
functions. I'm using visual studio 2012 to build the dll, and
PostgreSQL 9.2. I imported all directories postgres \include\server*
But I'm having the errors:
In
I'm poking at event triggers a bit; would like to set up some examples
(and see if they
work, or break down badly; both are interesting results) to do some
validation of schema
for Slony.
What I'm basically thinking about is to set up some event triggers that run on
DROP TABLE / DROP SEQUENCE,
Christopher Browne cbbro...@gmail.com writes:
I'm poking at event triggers a bit; would like to set up some examples
(and see if they
work, or break down badly; both are interesting results) to do some
validation of schema
for Slony.
Cool, thanks!
What I'm basically thinking about is to
On 01/27/2013 01:14 AM, Anderson C. Carniel wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to build a. dll file to extend the postgres server with C
functions. I'm using visual studio 2012 to build the dll, and
PostgreSQL 9.2. I imported all directories postgres \include\server*
But I'm having the errors:
Over in the thread about enhanced error fields, I claimed that
constraints are uniquely named among those associated with a table,
or with a domain. But it turns out that that ain't necessarily so,
because the code path for index constraints doesn't pay any attention
to pre-existing check
On 29 January 2013 00:25, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Of course this wouldn't be material for back-patching, but it seems to
me there's still time to fix this for 9.3, and we should do so if we
want to claim that the enhanced-errors patch uniquely identifies
constraints.
I can see the
On 2013-01-28 12:23:02 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-01-27 12:28:21 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
On 13-01-22 11:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
I pushed a new rebased version (the xlogreader commit made it annoying
to merge).
The main improvements are
* way much coherent
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 03:40:08PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 14 January 2013 15:29, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
Here is a patch to add an option -I/--idempotent to pg_ctl, the result
of which is that pg_ctl
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
There's a maximum of one FPI per page per cycle, and we need the FPI for
any modified page in this design regardless.
So, deferring the XLOG_HINT WAL record doesn't change the total number
of FPIs emitted. The only savings
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 01/28/2013 02:15 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I am not sure whether it's really true that a capability mechanism
could never really satisfy anyone. It worked for Linux.
I have no concern about using a capabilities
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Do we need to do anything to unloggedLSN in pg_resetxlog?
Does the server go into recovery after pg_resetxlog? If so, no. If
not, probably, but I have no idea what. There's no safe value in
that case; what we
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 15.01.2013 21:03, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On the third hand, the fact that a table is OCDR is recorded in
backend-local storage somewhere, and that storage (unlike the
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 09:29:35PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 03:40:08PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 14 January 2013 15:29, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
Here is a patch to add an
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that to do this right, we need to consider not only the status
quo but the trajectory. For example, suppose we have two tables to
process,
Peter Geoghegan peter.geoghega...@gmail.com writes:
On 29 January 2013 00:25, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Of course this wouldn't be material for back-patching, but it seems to
me there's still time to fix this for 9.3, and we should do so if we
want to claim that the enhanced-errors
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 02:12:33PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 23 January 2013 04:35, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Also, perhaps we should
consider Simon's one-liner fix for backpatching this instead of the
original patch you posted?
I have no nontrivial preference between the
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
So I think we need to sort by age(relfrozenxid) in tables that are over
the anti-wraparound limit. Given your code that doesn't seem to be that
hard?
I might also suggest that we think about changing the defaults for
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I think that we'll soon be buried in gripes if they're not. Pretty much
the whole point of this patch is to allow applications to get rid of
ad-hoc, it-usually-works coding techniques. I'd argue that not checking
the entire
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 04:29:12AM +, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 28 January 2013 03:34, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On the EBS configuration with volatile fsync timings, the variability didn't
go away with 15s runs. On systems with stable fsync times, 15s was no
better
than
I wrote:
Rather what we've got is that constraints are uniquely named among
those associated with a table, or with a domain. So the correct
unique key for a table constraint is table schema + table name +
constraint name, whereas for a domain constraint it's domain schema +
domain name +
Tom Lane Wrote:
Peter Geoghegan peter.geoghega...@gmail.com writes:
On 29 January 2013 00:25, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I can see the case for fixing this, but I don't feel that it's
particularly important that constraints be uniquely identifiable from
the proposed new errdata
I have to admit, I fail to see why this is a good idea. There isn't much
of an efficiency bonus in freezing early (due to hint bits) and vacuums
over vacuum_freeze_table_age are considerably more expensive as they
have to scan the whole heap instead of using the visibilitymap. And if
you
OK, I had some time to think about this. Basically, we have three
outcomes for pg_ctl start:
server not running and pg_ctl start success
server start failed
server already running
Can't we just assign different return values to these cases, e.g. 0, 1,
2? We already
On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 07:14 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Here is a patch for psql's \l command to accept patterns, like \d
commands do. While at it, I also added an S option to show system
objects and removed system objects from the default display. This might
be a bit controversial, but
Hello,
Thanks for fixing bug #6510!
Please look at the following l10n bug:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/502a26f1.6010...@gmail.com
and the proposed patch.
Best regards,
Alexander
From 1e2d5f712744d4731b665724703c0da4971ea41e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alexander Lakhin
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
OK, I had some time to think about this. Basically, we have three
outcomes for pg_ctl start:
server not running and pg_ctl start success
server start failed
server already running
Can't we
93 matches
Mail list logo
