On Friday, August 02, 2013 4:34 AM Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
They would need a setting that disables ALTER (DATABASE|USER) ... SET
... as well though. At least for some settings.
I don't think enforcing things on that level makes much sense.
On Friday, August 02, 2013 8:57 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
FWIW, I think you've just put the final nail in the coffin of this
patch by raising the barriers unreasonably high.
For my 2c, I don't think it's an unreasonable idea to actually
FOR SHARE|UPDATE NOWAIT will still block if they have to follow a ctid
chain because the call to EvalPlanQualFetch doesn't take a param for
noWait, so it doesn't know not to block if the updated row can't be locked.
The attached patch against master includes an isolationtester spec to
demonstrate
Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com writes:
By reading this thread, -1 for the addition of a new GUC parameter related
to cascading, it looks like an overkill for the possible gain. And +1 for
the removal of WAL file once it is replayed in archive recovery if
cascading replication is not
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
snip
I think we could do with both more documentation, and better error
messages for these cases. In the SET-where-you-should-use-ADD case,
perhaps
ERROR: option use_remote_estimate has not been set
HINT: Use ADD not
Le vendredi 2 août 2013 09:23:17, Amit Kapila a écrit :
On Friday, August 02, 2013 8:57 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
FWIW, I think you've just put the final nail in the coffin of this
patch by raising the barriers unreasonably high.
For my
On Thursday, August 01, 2013 8:37 PM Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2013-08-01 15:40:22 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
Why isn't it enough to just dump out all variables with a source of
alter
system to a text file? You can either have a single global lock
around that
operation or write it to a
On Friday, August 02, 2013 4:17 PM Cédric Villemain wrote:
Le vendredi 2 août 2013 09:23:17, Amit Kapila a écrit :
On Friday, August 02, 2013 8:57 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
FWIW, I think you've just put the final nail in the coffin of this
* Amit Kapila (amit.kap...@huawei.com) wrote:
Below are some points in my mind due to which I have supported/implemented
one-file-all-setting approach:
a. I had heard quite a few times that Postgres has lot of files (each
relation has separate file) as compare to Oracle.
Users feel that
* Amit Kapila (amit.kap...@huawei.com) wrote:
Yes, this can be viable option to ignore variable values that don't allow
server to start, also I agree with you that
this can be a separate patch.
I disagree that this can be a separate patch. Adding an option to not
allow certain GUCs from
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2013-07-26 13:33:13 +0900, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
Is this expected or acceptable?
I'd say it's both.
Postgres is built on the assumption that the underlying filesystem is
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Andrew Tipton and...@kiwidrew.com wrote:
The attached patch adds four new SQL functions for the JSON type:
json_typeof(json) RETURNS text
json_is_object(json) RETURNS boolean
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Gibheer gibh...@zero-knowledge.org wrote:
here is an update off my patch based on the discussion with Marko
Tiikkaja and Andres Freund.
Marko and I had the idea of introducing reserved connections based on
roles as it would create a way to garantuee specific
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
would you expect crash recovery to notice the disappearance of a file
that was touched nowhere in the replayed actions?
Eh, maybe not. But should we try harder to detect the
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
would you expect crash recovery to notice the disappearance of a file
that was touched nowhere in the replayed
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
I encountered the following assertion failure when I executed
an immediate shutdown.
LOG: received immediate shutdown request
WARNING: terminating connection because of crash of another server process
DETAIL: The
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
+1, but I'm wondering why we need anything more than just
json_typeof(). Doesn't that pretty much cover it?
I agree with Merlin that json_is_object() is superfluous, since it can just
be replaced with json_typeof() =
On Friday, August 02, 2013 5:19 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
* Amit Kapila (amit.kap...@huawei.com) wrote:
Below are some points in my mind due to which I have
supported/implemented one-file-all-setting approach:
a. I had heard quite a few times that Postgres has lot of files (each
relation
* Amit Kapila (amit.kap...@huawei.com) wrote:
This is an internal-to-PG data file and we should really implement it
in whichever way makes the most sense for us. My general feeling is
that one file is simpler and sufficient for the postgresql.conf-like
parameters,
Sure, I also feel
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Andrew Tipton and...@kiwidrew.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
+1, but I'm wondering why we need anything more than just
json_typeof(). Doesn't that pretty much cover it?
I agree with Merlin that
Hi,
I'm very new here on this mailing list, but I've been using PostgreSQL
for a while, and it scares me a little, that it's a real pain to try to
recover data from corrupted table.
Situations like file being lost following server crash (after fsck) or
page corruption happens quite often.
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
Perhaps having the file be a heap file instead of anything a sysadmin
can be asked to go hack would also make it more clear that this is an
internal PG file which is to be managed only through PG and stop all
this arguing about how oh, they can just fix
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Etsuro Fujita
fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
Attached is a small typo fix patch.
Committed. Thanks.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On 7/29/13 3:46 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Based on the ongoing discussion of this patch, I have moved it to 9.4CF2
(9-2013).
Mind you, it would be good to commit some version of it before September.
Quite a bit of the patch adds some refactored GUC parameter validation
code that seems necessary
On 2013-08-02 08:41:09 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Perhaps having the file be a heap file instead of anything a sysadmin
can be asked to go hack would also make it more clear that this is an
internal PG file which is to be managed only through PG and stop all
this arguing about how oh, they
Writing out each guc in a separate file is a singularly bad idea. It's
going out of our way to confuse users about what's going on and how
they're expected to interact with the settings files and it actively
makes it harder or nearly impossible to protect against simple
failures.
1) The whole
On 8/1/13 10:47 AM, David Johnston wrote:
Minor request: could someone enlighten me as to why making the directory
location a compile-time option is undesirable.
The ongoing argument here is whether to allow moving the directory at
all, or to make it fixed to $PGDATA the way recovery.conf is.
Sent from my iPad
On 02-Aug-2013, at 10:30, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 06:25:44PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
When rebasing a patch that I'm working on, I occasionally forget to
update the oid of any pg_proc.h entries I may have created. Of course
this
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Pavel Golub pa...@microolap.com wrote:
Hello, PostgreSQL.
Let's assume we have created MATERIALIZED VIEW, e.g.
CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW customer_v AS SELECT ;
Then one wants to redefine this view as a regular view, e.g.
CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
What if you set a combination of parameters that prevents Postgres from
starting?
This was what I was trying to get at up-thread. Things that prevent PG
from being able to start (or, really, which cause PG to be started in a
completely different mode, ala
Merlin Moncure escribió:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Andrew Tipton and...@kiwidrew.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
+1, but I'm wondering why we need anything more than just
json_typeof(). Doesn't that pretty much cover it?
I
Robert Haas escribió:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
I encountered the following assertion failure when I executed
an immediate shutdown.
LOG: received immediate shutdown request
WARNING: terminating connection because of crash of another
While looking at the GIN's partial match logic, I got an idea to let the generic
index code do what opclass-specific comparePartial() functions do. It can be
achieved if range type is accepted as key entry.
In this patch I add ANYRANGEARRAY pseudotype (note that changes in
parse_coerce.c are
Greg,
* Greg Stark (st...@mit.edu) wrote:
Writing out each guc in a separate file is a singularly bad idea. It's
going out of our way to confuse users about what's going on and how
they're expected to interact with the settings files and it actively
makes it harder or nearly impossible to
Dimitri Fontaine escribió:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
They would need a setting that disables ALTER (DATABASE|USER) ... SET
... as well though. At least for some settings.
I don't think enforcing things on that level makes much sense.
If only we could trigger some
Dear pgsql-hackers,
We students of International Institute of Information Technology Bangalore
India, are interested to contribute to PostgreSQL development. We identified
some modules from ToDo list to which we want to contribute.We want to begin
with an simple module with less dependency
Does the combination in $SUBJECT make sense? It is currently allowed,
but of course the underlying locks only last while the creating
transaction is open, and they are reacquired during a refresh.
Somewhat related is that the error message they emit is a bit
nonstandard:
cannot lock rows in
Stephen Frost escribió:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
What if you set a combination of parameters that prevents Postgres from
starting?
This was what I was trying to get at up-thread. Things that prevent PG
from being able to start (or, really, which cause PG to be started in a
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Does the combination in $SUBJECT make sense?
I don't think so; I don't know what it would mean.
It is currently allowed,
I will take a look.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via
On 08/02/2013 07:54 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
Curiously, I've not heard any argument about what parameters are safe
and what aren't, though I was asked which ones I thought were safe and
which weren't. Perhaps looking at the specific options that would
likely cause PG to not start would be
I just realized I mixed two different (but related) cases in my previous
email:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Does the combination in $SUBJECT make sense? It is currently allowed,
but of course the underlying locks only last while the creating
transaction is open, and they are reacquired during a
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote:
On 08/02/2013 07:54 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
Curiously, I've not heard any argument about what parameters are safe
and what aren't, though I was asked which ones I thought were safe and
which weren't. Perhaps looking at the specific options that
Etsuro Fujita fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes:
Thank you for the adjustments and comments! In addition to adding comments to
the function, I've improved the code in the function a little bit. Please
find
attached an updated version of the patch.
I started looking at this patch
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote:
A much simpler solution to the issue Stephen proposes is to have a way
to start up the server with all settings from ALTER SYSTEM SET disabled,
just like some software allows you to start it up in safe mode.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:18:15PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 07/12/2013 10:49 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 07/12/2013 01:28 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
-- a couple of compromise proposals were made:
a) that reviewers who do actual code modification of the
Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:18:15PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Right cause if a reviewer ends up writing (or cleaning up) all the
docs, I would say they deserve very close to equal credit. As an
example.
I can do whatever we agree to in the release notes. The
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote:
I really think this is the wrong approach. If we start removing
unsafe parameters from ALTER SYSTEM SET, we basically hobble the
feature to the point of uselessness. Out of the 15 or so parameters 80%
of our users touch, half of them are on your
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 04:43:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:18:15PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Right cause if a reviewer ends up writing (or cleaning up) all the
docs, I would say they deserve very close to equal credit. As an
On 08/02/2013 01:56 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 04:43:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:18:15PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Right cause if a reviewer ends up writing (or cleaning up) all the
docs, I would say they deserve
Bruce, all:
Per previous email, I wanted to make a specific proposal for what to do
on the 9.3 release notes. This is because, without policy set, we have
not been tracking which reviewers make substantial changes in 9.3, and
listing some-but-not-all of them would cause a lot of unhappiness
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 02:10:17PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce, all:
Per previous email, I wanted to make a specific proposal for what to do
on the 9.3 release notes. This is because, without policy set, we have
not been tracking which reviewers make substantial changes in 9.3, and
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 02:07:53PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 08/02/2013 01:56 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 04:43:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:18:15PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Right cause if a reviewer ends
Craig Ringer wrote:
A SELECT ... FOR SHARE will incorrectly block on another open
transaction that ran SELECT ... FOR SHARE and still holds the locks if
it has to follow a ctid chain from the current snapshot through a
committed update to a share-locked tuple.
This also affects uniqueness
On 08/02/2013 02:24 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Based on existing workflow, we need those reviewer names in the commit
message. I don't see how the CommitFestManager can help with that.
We can change the workflow. It's ours, there's no government agency
mandating it.
Anyway, the list from the
On 08/02/2013 02:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I don't think dumping reviewer names at the bottom of the 9.3 release
notes is what the majority want, and it seems like an ugly short-term
solution.
It's better than not crediting the reviewers *at all*, which is the only
alternative I can think
Tomas Vondra wrote:
I'm learning how to use the background worker processes commited in
9.3. The usage basics are quite nicely illustrated in the worker_spi
extension (kudos to those who designed the feature / extension).
Thanks!
I'm not quite sure how to pass data between the regular
Reading between the lines of the original submission at
CAPpHfdtG5qoHoD+w=Tz3wC3fZ=b8i21=V5xandBFM=DTo-Yg=q...@mail.gmail.com,
I gather that it's the KNNGist-style case that worries you, so maybe
it's worth applying this type of patch anyway. I'd want to rejigger
it to be aware of the cost
Alvaro Herrera escribió:
As it turns out, I have a patched slru.c that adds a new function to
verify whether a page exists on disk. I created this for the commit
timestamp module, for the BDR branch, but I think it's what we need
here.
Here's a patch that should fix the problem. Jesse, if
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 02:36:42PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 08/02/2013 02:24 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Based on existing workflow, we need those reviewer names in the commit
message. I don't see how the CommitFestManager can help with that.
We can change the workflow. It's ours,
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
Reading between the lines of the original submission at
CAPpHfdtG5qoHoD+w=Tz3wC3fZ=b8i21=V5xandBFM=DTo-Yg=q...@mail.gmail.com,
I gather that it's the KNNGist-style case that worries you, so maybe
it's worth applying this type of patch anyway. I'd want to
On 08/02/2013 03:18 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
You're making a big deal out of what's a minor clerical detail. Don't
let minutia which any secretary could take care of get in the way of an
important project goal, that is, rewarding reviewers so that lack of
reviewers stops being a major project
On 08/02/2013 03:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
So, Returned With Feedback, or move it to September?
The patch is certainly not getting committed as-is (at least not by me),
so it would likely be fair to mark it RWF so we can close the commitfest.
I'll still work on a revised version after the fest
Folks,
The first CF for the 9.4 development cycle is officially over.
In all, 49 patches were committed, 47 were returned with feedback, 6
were rejected outright, and 6 were punted to CF2. We're 17 days over
the CF deadline at this point, but that's unsurprising considering that
this CF
On 08/02/2013 04:47 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Folks,
The first CF for the 9.4 development cycle is officially over.
Also, I wanted to say thank you to:
- Mike Blackwell, assistant CFM
- all 30+ reviewers and committers (list to come)
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 03:55:27PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 08/02/2013 03:18 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
You're making a big deal out of what's a minor clerical detail. Don't
let minutia which any secretary could take care of get in the way of an
important project goal, that is, rewarding
On 1 August 2013 18:01, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Hi,
Please find attached to this email the latest and greatest version of
in-line SQL only extensions support, known as Extension Templates and
which could be renamed In-Catalog Extension Templates.
I've included a
On 2013-08-02 18:17:43 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Alvaro Herrera escribió:
As it turns out, I have a patched slru.c that adds a new function to
verify whether a page exists on disk. I created this for the commit
timestamp module, for the BDR branch, but I think it's what we need
Andres Freund escribió:
On 2013-08-02 18:17:43 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Alvaro Herrera escribió:
As it turns out, I have a patched slru.c that adds a new function to
verify whether a page exists on disk. I created this for the commit
timestamp module, for the BDR branch, but I
(2013/08/03 8:47), Josh Berkus wrote:
Given that we can expect to be dealing with more patches per CF in the
future, I'd like some feedback about what things would make the CF
process more efficient. For that matter, for the first time we tried
enforcing some of the rules of CFs this time, and
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 11:20:37PM -0400, Jesse Denardo wrote:
Alvaro,
I applied the patch and tried upgrading again, and everything seemed to work
as
expected. We are now up and running the beta!
Yeah, great, thanks everyone!
--
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us
On 2013-08-02 22:25:36 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andres Freund escribió:
On 2013-08-02 18:17:43 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Alvaro Herrera escribió:
As it turns out, I have a patched slru.c that adds a new function to
verify whether a page exists on disk. I created this for
Alvaro,
I applied the patch and tried upgrading again, and everything seemed to
work as expected. We are now up and running the beta!
--
Jesse Denardo
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
Andres Freund escribió:
On 2013-08-02 18:17:43 -0400,
72 matches
Mail list logo
