Darren Duncan wrote:
From my usage and
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/interactive/sql-createtable.html I see that
Postgres requires constraints like unique (and primary) keys, and foreign
keys,
to range over at least 1 attribute/column.
I propose that this be generalized so that
Tom Lane wrote:
It struck me while looking at the regression test arrangements for
postgres_fdw that as things are set up, the default username for
outgoing connections is going to be that of the operating system
user running the postmaster. dblink is the same way.
Now, this might not be
On 19.03.2013 13:49, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 19.03.2013 04:42, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Also, using the old tools against new server versions either behaves
funny or silently appears to work, both of which
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The idea I was thinking about is refactoring the background writer's role in
hint bit maintenance
A good first step might be to separate the dirty bit into two bits.
mandatory dirty and optional dirty. (Or maybe hard dirty
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:35:35PM -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 3/20/13 8:41 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Also, if a users uses checksums in 9.3, could they initdb without
checksums in 9.4 and use pg_upgrade? As coded, the pg_controldata
checksum settings would not match and pg_upgrade would throw
Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at writes:
Darren Duncan wrote:
I propose that this be generalized so that constraints may instead be
nullary,
that is, range over zero or more attributes/columns instead.
Since an imagined zero-column query would have an empty set of
result columns, you
Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com writes:
On 25 March 2013 13:02, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Brendan, how hard would it be to create a GUC for backwards-compatible
behavior?
Good idea.
No, it *isn't* a good idea. GUCs that change application-visible
semantics are dangerous. We
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@iki.fi writes:
Add PF_PRINTF_ATTRIBUTE to on_exit_msg_fmt.
Per warning from -Wmissing-format-attribute.
Hm, this is exactly what I removed yesterday, because it makes the build
fail outright on old gcc:
gcc -O1 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 05:09:53PM +0200, Ants Aasma wrote:
To see real world performance numbers I dumped the algorithms on top
of the checksums patch. I set up postgres with 32MB shared buffers,
and ran with concurrency 4 select only pgbench and a worst case
workload, results are median of 5
On 26 March 2013 00:30, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com writes:
On 25 March 2013 13:02, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Brendan, how hard would it be to create a GUC for backwards-compatible
behavior?
Good idea.
No, it *isn't* a good idea. GUCs that
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:14 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
vacuum_delay is designed to slow down VACUUMs from writing too many
blocks. However, SELECTs also dirty data blocks but are NOT slowed
down by vacuum_delay.
So the current situation is that a large SELECT operates
Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com writes:
On 26 March 2013 00:30, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
No, it *isn't* a good idea. GUCs that change application-visible
semantics are dangerous. We should have learned this lesson by now.
They are?
Yeah, they are, because things break when they're
On 21 March 2013 10:45, Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com wrote:
src/test/isolation/expected/timeouts.out| 16 +-
src/test/isolation/specs/timeouts.spec | 8 +-
Oops, looks like some unrelated changes made their way into the
original patch. Apologies. Here's a -v2 patch, sans
On 03/14/2013 05:23 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
On 03/13/2013 04:16 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Joe Conway m...@joeconway.com writes:
I think it should dump the user data portion, especially since that
matches what pg_dump would do if you did not specify the table or schema.
+1
If you don't have
On 13-03-20 05:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Steve Singer ssin...@ca.afilias.info writes:
From a end-user expectations point of view I am okay with somehow
marking the structure returned by PQconndefaults in a way that the
connect calls will later fail.
Unless the program changes the value of
On 25.03.2013 15:36, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangasheikki.linnakan...@iki.fi writes:
Add PF_PRINTF_ATTRIBUTE to on_exit_msg_fmt.
Per warning from -Wmissing-format-attribute.
Hm, this is exactly what I removed yesterday, because it makes the build
fail outright on old gcc:
gcc -O1 -Wall
On Mar 25, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Joe Conway m...@joeconway.com wrote:
On 03/14/2013 05:23 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
On 03/13/2013 04:16 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Joe Conway m...@joeconway.com writes:
I think it should dump the user data portion, especially since that
matches what pg_dump would do
Vibhor Kumar escribió:
On Mar 25, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Joe Conway m...@joeconway.com wrote:
On 03/14/2013 05:23 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
On 03/13/2013 04:16 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Joe Conway m...@joeconway.com writes:
I think it should dump the user data portion, especially since that
Greg Smith wrote:
Note that an EXPLAIN based approach doesn't solve all the problems
in this area, because the trickiest ones I run into are ALTER TABLE
changes--which you can't EXPLAIN. Some API that dumps the locks an
arbitrary statement acquired just before it exits would be ideal.
When
On 03/25/2013 08:12 AM, Vibhor Kumar wrote:
Since, nobody has picked this one.
If there is no objection,then I can test this patch against 9.1 9.2.
Here are diffs for 9.1 and 9.2. The previous email was against 9.3 dev.
Joe
--
Joe Conway
credativ LLC: http://www.credativ.us
Linux,
On Mar 25, 2013, at 10:17 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Vibhor Kumar escribió:
On Mar 25, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Joe Conway m...@joeconway.com wrote:
On 03/14/2013 05:23 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
On 03/13/2013 04:16 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Joe Conway m...@joeconway.com
On Mar 25, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Joe Conway m...@joeconway.com wrote:
On 03/25/2013 08:12 AM, Vibhor Kumar wrote:
Since, nobody has picked this one.
If there is no objection,then I can test this patch against 9.1 9.2.
Here are diffs for 9.1 and 9.2. The previous email was against 9.3 dev.
Tom Lane escribió:
It looks to me like DropOwnedObjects doesn't actually insist on
superuserness to do DROP OWNED, only ability to become the role,
which means that DROP OWNED BY is completely broken for privileges
if executed by a non-superuser; the only privileges it would remove
would be
This is pretty similar to the proposal Atri and I just recently made.
I am 100% in agreement that something must be done here...SELECT has
none of the i/o mitigation features that vacuum has. Is your idea
better? probably (although you have to give a small penalty for a user
facing tunable)
Tom,
No, it *isn't* a good idea. GUCs that change application-visible
semantics are dangerous. We should have learned this lesson by now.
Really? I thought that standard_conforming_strings was a great example
of how to ease our users into a backwards-compatibility break. My
thought was
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks! I confirmed that the problem that I reported has
disappeared in HEAD.
Unfortunately I found another odd behavior. When I accessed the
MV after VACUUM ANALYZE, I got the
Hi,
I found that the regression test failed when I created the database
cluster with the checksum and set wal_level to archive. I think that
there are some bugs around checksum feature. Attached is the regression.diff.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
regression.diffs
Description: Binary data
--
On 2013.03.25 1:17 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
Darren Duncan wrote:
From my usage and
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/interactive/sql-createtable.html I see that
Postgres requires constraints like unique (and primary) keys, and foreign keys,
to range over at least 1 attribute/column.
I
On 25 March 2013 14:26, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
This is pretty similar to the proposal Atri and I just recently made.
I am 100% in agreement that something must be done here...SELECT has
none of the i/o mitigation features that vacuum has. Is your idea
better? probably
On 03/24/2013 11:22 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 03/24/2013 06:06 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Over the weekend, KDE came within a gnat's eyelash of losing *all*
their authoritative git
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:59:21AM -0400, Steve Singer wrote:
On 13-03-20 05:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Steve Singer ssin...@ca.afilias.info writes:
From a end-user expectations point of view I am okay with somehow
marking the structure returned by PQconndefaults in a way that the
connect
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Tom,
No, it *isn't* a good idea. GUCs that change application-visible
semantics are dangerous. We should have learned this lesson by now.
Really? I thought that standard_conforming_strings was a great example
of how to
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc wrote:
On 03/24/2013 11:22 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 03/24/2013 06:06 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Over the
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc wrote:
Back when we used CVS for quite a few years I kept 7 day rolling
snapshots of the CVS repo, against just such a difficulty as this. But
we seem to be much better organized with infrastructure these days so I
On 25.03.2013 11:23, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 19.03.2013 13:49, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 19.03.2013 04:42, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Also, using the old tools against new server versions either behaves
On 15.03.2013 04:25, Michael Paquier wrote:
Hi,
When trying to *promote* a slave as master by removing recovery.conf and
restarting node, I found an assertion failure on master branch:
LOG: database system was shut down in recovery at 2013-03-15 10:22:27 JST
TRAP:
On 26 March 2013 05:26, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
I'm not as sanguine as Tom is about how likely these corner cases will
be met actually. As far as I can tell checking IS NULL on
array_length() was the supported way to check for 0-length arrays
previously
Correct. There was no other
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:03:21AM +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
pg_is_lock_exclusive(lock, lock) returns boolean
pg_is_lock_exclusive(lock[], lock[]) returns boolean
I suppose that the lock type would be text ('ExclusiveLock'), but we
could also
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
we need testing against real world workloads, or at least a much
better synthetic one than pgbench, which per recent discussions
is probably the top objective of the project (a performance
farm, etc.).
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 25 March 2013 14:26, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
This is pretty similar to the proposal Atri and I just recently made.
I am 100% in agreement that something must be done here...SELECT has
none of the i/o
On 25 March 2013 20:44, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
we need testing against real world workloads, or at least a much
better synthetic one than pgbench, which per recent discussions
is probably the
On 26 March 2013 05:04, Darren Duncan dar...@darrenduncan.net wrote:
On 2013.03.25 1:17 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
The desired effect can be had today with a unique index:
CREATE TABLE singleton (id integer);
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX singleton_idx ON singleton((1));
Okay, that is helpful, and less
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 25 March 2013 20:44, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
This is absolutely a real-world problem, but I disagree that the
solution you propose is risk-free. It would be trivial to
construct a test which would show massive performance
Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com writes:
On 26 March 2013 05:04, Darren Duncan dar...@darrenduncan.net wrote:
On 2013.03.25 1:17 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
The desired effect can be had today with a unique index:
CREATE TABLE singleton (id integer);
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX singleton_idx ON
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
That would make it harder to construct a degenerate case
I don't think it's hard at all. It's the same as the case Simon wants
to solve except that the cost is incurred in a different way. Imagine
a system where there's a
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
We are taking this approach because PQconndefaults() doesn't have an API
to return the error cause, while other API calls do. Returning true so
we can later report the right error from a later API call just feels
wrong.
Well, plan B would be to invent a
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
That would make it harder to construct a degenerate case
I don't think it's hard at all. It's the same as the case Simon wants
to solve except that the
Greg Stark st...@mit.edu writes:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
That would make it harder to construct a degenerate case
I don't think it's hard at all. It's the same as the case Simon wants
to solve except that the cost is incurred in a different
On 25 March 2013 23:18, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Greg Stark st...@mit.edu writes:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
That would make it harder to construct a degenerate case
I don't think it's hard at all. It's the same as the case Simon wants
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 25 March 2013 04:08, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Feedback is warmly welcome.
I'll look at this in the coming week.
Thanks.
--
Michael
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 25 March 2013 23:18, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
This is clearly worth thinking about and trying to find better solutions
for. I'm only against trying to solve it in the 9.3 timeframe. It will
take a lot longer than that to get something
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
On 25.03.2013 15:36, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangasheikki.linnakan...@iki.fi writes:
Add PF_PRINTF_ATTRIBUTE to on_exit_msg_fmt.
Per warning from -Wmissing-format-attribute.
Hm, this is exactly what I removed yesterday, because it makes
On 03/25/2013 10:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah, they are, because things break when they're set wrong.
They also make debugging and support harder; you need to get an
ever-growing list of GUC values from the user to figure out what their
query does. bytea_output, standard_conforming_strings, etc.
On 2013.03.25 5:55 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 03/25/2013 10:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah, they are, because things break when they're set wrong.
They also make debugging and support harder; you need to get an
ever-growing list of GUC values from the user to figure out what their
query does.
On 2013.03.25 6:03 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
On 2013.03.25 5:55 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 03/25/2013 10:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah, they are, because things break when they're set wrong.
They also make debugging and support harder; you need to get an
ever-growing list of GUC values from the
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Great analysis. Is there any logic to using a lighter-weight checksum
calculation for cases where the corruption is rare? For example, we
know that network transmission can easily be corrupted, while buffer
corruption is
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I'll bet you all a beer at PgCon 2014 that this remains unresolved at
that point.
Are you saying you're only interested in working on it now? That after
9.3 is release you won't be interested in working on it any more?
On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 12:21 +, Greg Stark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The idea I was thinking about is refactoring the background writer's role in
hint bit maintenance
A good first step might be to separate the dirty bit into two bits.
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
Where are we with this patch? I'm a bit unclear from the discussion on
whether it passes muster or not. Things seem to have petered out.
I took another look at this patch tonight. I think the thing that is
bothering everybody (including Pavel) is that as
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 07:07:42PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
We are taking this approach because PQconndefaults() doesn't have an API
to return the error cause, while other API calls do. Returning true so
we can later report the right error from a later
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:14:15AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Tom,
No, it *isn't* a good idea. GUCs that change application-visible
semantics are dangerous. We should have learned this lesson by now.
Really? I thought that standard_conforming_strings was a great example
of how to ease
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 07:07:42PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, plan B would be to invent a replacement function that does have
the ability to return an error message, but that seems like a lot of
work for a problem that's so marginal that it wasn't
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:14:15AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
No, it *isn't* a good idea. GUCs that change application-visible
semantics are dangerous. We should have learned this lesson by now.
Really? I thought that standard_conforming_strings was a
63 matches
Mail list logo
