On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Amit Kapila escribió:
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Windows, patch gives below compilation errors:
src\backend\access\minmax\mmtuple.c(96): error C2057:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Amit Kapila escribió:
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Windows, patch gives
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:55 PM, David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think I must have forgot to save it before I emailed it...
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 03:23:30PM +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
Should we just fix the comment and say its applicable for all tables
except
accounts ?
Please do.
How about something like this ? Patch attached.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
Enable the memcg OOM killer only for user faults, where it's really the
only option available.
Is this really a big deal? I would expect most faults to
On 27.09.2013 01:55, Andres Freund wrote:
Hello,
We have had several customers running postgres on bigger machines report
problems on busy systems. Most recently one where a fully cached
workload completely stalled in s_lock()s due to the *shared* lwlock
acquisition in BufferAlloc() around the
Hi,
On 2013-09-27 10:14:46 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 27.09.2013 01:55, Andres Freund wrote:
We have had several customers running postgres on bigger machines report
problems on busy systems. Most recently one where a fully cached
workload completely stalled in s_lock()s due to the
On 2013-09-27 09:21:05 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
So the goal is to have LWLockAcquire(LW_SHARED) never block unless
somebody else holds an exclusive lock. To produce enough appetite for
reading the rest of the long mail, here's some numbers on a
pgbench -j 90 -c 90 -T 60 -S (-i -s 10) on
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Pavan Deolasee
pavan.deola...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm... when synchronous_transfer is set to data_flush,
IMO the intuitive behaviors are
(1) synchronous_commit = on
A data flush should
On 27.09.2013 10:21, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2013-09-27 10:14:46 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 27.09.2013 01:55, Andres Freund wrote:
We have had several customers running postgres on bigger machines report
problems on busy systems. Most recently one where a fully cached
workload
On 2013-09-27 09:57:07 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-09-27 09:21:05 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
So the goal is to have LWLockAcquire(LW_SHARED) never block unless
somebody else holds an exclusive lock. To produce enough appetite for
reading the rest of the long mail, here's some
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Sawada Masahiko sawada.m...@gmail.comwrote:
Thank you for comment. I think it is good simple idea.
In your opinion, if synchronous_transfer is set 'all' and
synchronous_commit is set 'on',
the master wait for data flush eve if user sets synchronous_commit
On 2013-09-27 11:11:56 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 27.09.2013 10:21, Andres Freund wrote:
Heaps better. In the case causing this investigation lots of the pages
with hot spinlocks were the simply the same ones over and over again,
partitioning the lockspace won't help much there.
I wrote:
I had a look over this patch. I think this patch is interesting and very
useful.
Here are my review points:
8. I think there are no issues in this patch. However, I have one question:
how this patch works in the case where gin_fast_limit/fast_cache_size = 0? In
this case, in my
Sorry for delay in reply.
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Haribabu kommi
haribabu.ko...@huawei.comwrote:
On Tue, 17 September 2013 14:33 Rushabh Lathia wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Haribabu kommi
haribabu.ko...@huawei.com wrote:
***On *14 August 2013 Rushabh Lathia
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Pavan Deolasee
pavan.deola...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Sawada Masahiko sawada.m...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thank you for comment. I think it is good simple idea.
In your opinion, if synchronous_transfer is set 'all' and
On 27 September 2013 15:04 Rushabh Lathia wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Haribabu kommi
haribabu.ko...@huawei.commailto:haribabu.ko...@huawei.com wrote:
I feel changing the year value to accept the length (4) is not simple.
So many places the year length crossing more than length 4 is
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Ivan Lezhnjov IV
i...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Thanks for a detailed response. I attached a patch file that builds on your
corrections and introduces some of the edits discussed above.
This patch makes at least five unrelated sets of changes:
1. Attempting to
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Christopher Browne cbbro...@gmail.com wrote:
Sitting on my todo list for a while has been to consider the idea of
adding a bit of additional functionality to createuser.
One of the functions of CREATE ROLE is to associate the role with
other roles, thus...
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
But how do we ensure that the BMS is allocated in a context? You'd have
to switch contexts each time you call bms_add_member. I don't have a
good answer to this.
The coding of bms_add_member is pretty funky. Why
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I think we can rule out value locks that are held for the
duration of a transaction right away. That's just not going to fly.
I think I
On Sep27, 2013, at 00:55 , Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
So the goal is to have LWLockAcquire(LW_SHARED) never block unless
somebody else holds an exclusive lock. To produce enough appetite for
reading the rest of the long mail, here's some numbers on a
pgbench -j 90 -c 90 -T 60
Hi Robert,
On 09/27/2013 05:56:52 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
1. Attempting to encourage people to consider custom format dumps.
What's important is what you can do...
Your critique seems obvious in retrospect. Sorry you had
to step in here and do my job. The above point is particularly
On 27 September 2013 16:14, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Hi,
Attached you can find an updated version of the series taking in some of
the review comments (the others are queued, not ignored), including:
* split of things from the big Introduce wal decoding via ... patch
* fix
On 2013-09-27 16:35:53 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
On 27 September 2013 16:14, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Hi,
Attached you can find an updated version of the series taking in some of
the review comments (the others are queued, not ignored), including:
* split of things
When adding json support to hstore, I made a major blunder and added the
new functionality to the existing sql script instead of bumping the
version, renaming the script and adding an update script.
This was lazy and there's no real excuse, although I will note that it
was a mistake far too
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Karl O. Pinc k...@meme.com wrote:
Hi Robert,
On 09/27/2013 05:56:52 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
1. Attempting to encourage people to consider custom format dumps.
What's important is what you can do...
Your critique seems obvious in retrospect. Sorry you had
On 9/26/13 2:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
Why would we add additional code complexity when forks do the trick? That
seems like a step backwards, not forward.
Well, they sorta do the trick, but see e.g. commit
On 9/27/13 6:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Thus, the above commands might be replaced by:
PGUSER=postgres createuser -D -S -l -g
app_readonly_role,app2_writer_role my_new_user
Would this be worth adding to the ToDo list?
I'd be inclined to favor a patch implementing this.
+1
--
Jim C. Nasby,
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
Yeah, we obviously kept things simpler when adding forks in order to get the
feature out the door. There's improvements that need to be made. But IMHO
that's not reason to automatically avoid forks; we need to consider the cost
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2013-08-27 12:17:55 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Tue, Aug
On 9/27/13 1:43 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
Honestly, I think we actually need more obfuscation between what happens on the
filesystem and the rest of postgres... we're starting to look at areas where
that would help. For example, the recent idea of being able to truncate
individual relation files
On 27.09.2013 14:12, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
But how do we ensure that the BMS is allocated in a context? You'd have
to switch contexts each time you call bms_add_member. I don't have a
good answer to this.
The
On 27.09.2013 22:00, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Merlin Moncuremmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Merlin Moncuremmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Andres Freundand...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-08-27 12:17:55
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Yep. I only added the first caller of the barriers altogether in the
xlog-insertion scaling patch. Robert wrote the infrastructure in 9.3, but it
wasn't used until now, in 9.4.
FWIW, it was actually during 9.2
On 09/26/2013 02:47 PM, Steve Singer wrote:
I've determined that when in this test the walsender seems to be
hitting this when it is decode the transactions that are behind the
slonik commands to add tables to replication (set add table, set add
sequence). This is before the SUBSCRIBE SET
On 2013-09-27 23:28:37 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 27.09.2013 22:00, Merlin Moncure wrote:
Attached is simplified patch that replaces the spinlock with a read
barrier based on a suggestion made by Andres offlist. The approach
has different performance characteristics -- a barrier call
Hi Steve,
On 2013-09-27 17:06:59 -0400, Steve Singer wrote:
I've determined that when in this test the walsender seems to be hitting
this when it is decode the transactions that are behind the slonik
commands to add tables to replication (set add table, set add sequence).
This is before the
On 2013-09-27 14:46:50 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
On Sep27, 2013, at 00:55 , Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
So the goal is to have LWLockAcquire(LW_SHARED) never block unless
somebody else holds an exclusive lock. To produce enough appetite for
reading the rest of the long
Hi,
What confuses me is that pg_read_barrier() is just a compiler barrier on
x86[-64] in barrier.h. According to my knowledge it needs to be an
lfence or the full barrier?
The linked papers from Paul McKenney - which are a great read - seem to
agree?
On 2013-09-27 23:12:17 +0200, Andres Freund
Attached is a patch implementing the -g / --roles option for createuser.
I'll be attaching it to the open CommitFest shortly.
createuser.diff
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 06:31:38PM -0400, Steve Singer wrote:
On 09/12/2013 06:27 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Attached is a patch for a bit of infrastructure I believe to be
necessary for correct behavior of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW
CONCURRENTLY as well as
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't have another idea either. In fact, I'd go so far as to say
that doing any third thing that's better than those two to any
reasonable person is obviously impossible. But I'd add that we simple
cannot rollback at
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Various messages are discussing semantics around visibility. I by now
have a hard time keeping track. So let's keep the discussion of the
desired semantics to this thread.
Yes, it's pretty complicated.
I meant to
44 matches
Mail list logo
