Hello
updated patch without timetz support
Regards
Pavel
2014-02-19 21:20 GMT+01:00 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com:
Pavel Stehule escribió:
I though about it, and now I am thinking so timezone in format
'Europe/Prague' is together with time ambiguous
We can do it, but we
(Top post, on phone)
The @number part is optional. It indicates an export ordinal. (You don't want
to know, if you do, see MSDN).
If you remove them or change them then binaries linked to the older version
will fail to link to the newer; it breaks binary compat. The ordinals are part
of the
Hi,
I tried reproduce this bug on CENTOS 6.4 as well as on UBUNTU 13.04.
My Base machine is Window 7 and CentOs, Ubuntu is in VM.
CENTOS :
[amul@localhost postgresql]$ uname -a
Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.32-358.6.1.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Apr 23
19:29:00 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64
(2014/02/18 0:02), Dave Page wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
(BTW, narwhal is evidently not trying to build plpython. I wonder
why not?)
Not
On 18 February 2014 21:47, MauMau Wrote:
We already have two different versions of make_absolute_path() in the
tree
- one in src/backend/utils/init/miscinit.c and one in
src/test/regress/pg_regress.c.
I don't think we need a third one.
If we put it in port/ like this patch done,
I am sorry,
My Ubuntu info was wrong in previous mail, correct one as follow
UBUNTU:
[amul@localhost postgresql]$ uname -a
Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.32-358.6.1.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Apr 23
19:29:00 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
amul@amul:~/work/postgresql$ uname -a
Linux amul
On 02/20/2014 04:15 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 for back-patching.
Back-patching would be interesting for existing applications, but -1
as it is a new feature :)
I think that it rises to the level of an
I found a very simple repro on my machine
postgres=# select x, x, lpad('string', 100, x::text) from
generate_series(1, 1000) x;
Killed
So this is just about fetching huge data through psql.
But if I reduce the number of rows by 10 times, it gives result without
getting killed.
2014-02-20 16:16 GMT+09:00 Ashutosh Bapat ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com:
Hi All,
Here is a strange behaviour with master branch with head at
(...)
Looks like a bug in psql to me. Does anybody see that behaviour?
It's not a bug, it's your VM's OS killing off a process which is using
up too
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
May be each setup has it's own breaking point. So trying with larger
number might reproduce the issue.
I tried to debug it with gdb, but all it showed me was that psql received
a SIGKILL signal. I am
Hi,
On 18.02.2014 22:02, Andres Freund wrote:
Not really sure which way is better.
One dev against it, one dev not sure. Enough for me to change it :)
Will post a new patch this evening.
Best regards,
--
Christian Kruse http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development,
Ian, Pavan,
That's correct, OS is killing the process
You are correct, the OS is killing the process
3766 Feb 20 14:30:14 ubuntu kernel: [23820.175868] Out of memory: Kill
process 34080 (psql) score 756 or sacrifice child
3767 Feb 20 14:30:14 ubuntu kernel: [23820.175871] Killed process 34080
On 02/09/2014 12:11 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
I've rebased catalog changes with last master. Patch is attached. I've
rerun my test suite with both last master ('committed') and attached
patch ('ternary-consistent').
Thanks!
method | sum
--On 20. Februar 2014 14:49:28 +0530 Ashutosh Bapat
ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
If I set some positive value for this variable, psql runs smoothly with
any size of data. But unset that variable, and it gets killed. But it's
nowhere written explicitly that psql can run out of
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de wrote:
--On 20. Februar 2014 14:49:28 +0530 Ashutosh Bapat
ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
If I set some positive value for this variable, psql runs smoothly with
any size of data. But unset that variable, and it
On 02/01/2014 12:28 PM, Christian Kruse wrote:
On 31/01/14 22:17, MauMau wrote:
Thanks for reviewing the patch. Fixed. I'll add this revised patch to the
CommitFest entry soon.
Looks fine for me. Set it to „waiting for commit.“
Hmm, why do this only on Windows? If postgres -C is safe
(2014/02/20 15:47), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Although my concerns here are only two points,
unanticipated application and maintenancibility. I gave a
consideration on these issues again.
Sorry, I misunderstood what you mean by unanticipated application.
Then, I think it could be enough by
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Haribabu Kommi
kommi.harib...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Haribabu Kommi
kommi.harib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Tom Lane
From: Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com
Hmm, why do this only on Windows? If postgres -C is safe enough to run
as Administrator on Windows, why not allow running it as root on Unix as
well? Even if there's no particular need to allow it as root on Unix,
fewer #ifdefs is good.
Yes, I
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
That seems a good idea. We will get rid of FETCH_COUNT then, wouldn't we?
No, I don't think we want to do that. FETCH_COUNT values greater than
1 are still useful to get reasonably tabulated output without
I have a database where a a couple rows don't appear in index scans
but do appear in sequential scans. It looks like the same problem as
Peter reported but this is a different database. I've extracted all
the xlogdump records and below are the ones I think are relevant. You
can see that lp 2 gets
2014-02-20 01:37, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Perhaps it would be acceptable to drop the btree_gist implementation
and teach pg_upgrade to refuse to upgrade if the old database contains
any such indexes. I'm not sure that solves the problem, though, because
I think pg_upgrade will still
On 19 February 2014 16:04, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, *I* don't think this is ready to go. A WAL rate limit that only
limits WAL sometimes still doesn't impress me.
Could you be specific in your criticism? Sometimes wouldn't impress
anybody, but we need to understand
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 19 February 2014 16:04, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, *I* don't think this is ready to go. A WAL rate limit that only
limits WAL sometimes still doesn't impress me.
Could you be specific in your
On 19 February 2014 13:28, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Agreed; that was the original plan, but implementation delays
prevented the whole vision/discussion/implementation. Requirements
from various areas include WAL
Marti Raudsepp ma...@juffo.org writes:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
That seems a good idea. We will get rid of FETCH_COUNT then, wouldn't we?
No, I don't think we want to do that. FETCH_COUNT values greater than
1 are still useful to
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The design choice of making the limit only apply to bulk ops is
because that is where the main problem lies. Rate limiting will cause
a loss of performance in the main line for non-bulk operations, so
adding tests there
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The design choice of making the limit only apply to bulk ops is
because that is where the main problem lies. Rate limiting will cause
a loss of performance in the main line for non-bulk operations, so
adding tests there
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The design choice of making the limit only apply to bulk ops is
because that is where the main problem lies. Rate limiting will cause
a loss of
--On 20. Februar 2014 09:51:47 -0500 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Yeah. The other reason that you can't just transparently change the
behavior is error handling: people are used to seeing either all or
none of the output of a query. In single-row mode that guarantee
fails, since some
On 02/20/2014 04:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The design choice of making the limit only apply to bulk ops is
because that is where the main problem lies. Rate limiting will cause
a loss of performance in the main line for
Robert Haas escribió:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The design choice of making the limit only apply to bulk ops is
because that is where the main problem lies. Rate limiting will cause
a loss of performance in the main line for non-bulk
Hi,
On 2014-02-20 13:25:35 +, Greg Stark wrote:
I have a database where a a couple rows don't appear in index scans
but do appear in sequential scans. It looks like the same problem as
Peter reported but this is a different database. I've extracted all
the xlogdump records and below are
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 08:29:38PM +0200, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Shore up GRANT ... WITH ADMIN OPTION restrictions (Noah Misch)
I'm not familiar with the phrase Shore up, I think it should use
more precise language: are the
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com
wrote:
On 02/19/2014 11:15 PM, Neil Thombre wrote:
And that is where I have a question. I noticed that in pg_standby.c when
we
detect the word fast in the trigger file we truncate the file.
On 09/02/14 17:11, Jeremy Harris wrote:
On 06/02/14 18:21, Jeff Janes wrote:
Did you try sorting already-sorted, reverse
sorted, or pipe-organ shaped data sets? We will also need to test it on
strings. I usually use md5(random()::text) to generate strings for such
purposes, at least for a
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Updated patches for both pieces. Included is some tidying done by Teodor,
and fixes for remaining whitespace issues. This now passes git diff --check
master cleanly for me.
So one thing that isn't clear from these
(2014/02/20 19:55), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2014/02/20 15:47), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Although my concerns here are only two points,
unanticipated application and maintenancibility. I gave a
consideration on these issues again.
Sorry, I misunderstood what you mean by unanticipated
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de wrote:
--On 20. Februar 2014 09:51:47 -0500 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Yeah. The other reason that you can't just transparently change the
behavior is error handling: people are used to seeing either all or
none
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Hi,
In WalSndLoop() we do:
wakeEvents = WL_LATCH_SET | WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH | WL_TIMEOUT |
WL_SOCKET_READABLE;
if (pq_is_send_pending())
wakeEvents |= WL_SOCKET_WRITEABLE;
else if
Hi,
NOTICE: Child foregn table child01 is affected.
NOTICE: Child foregn table child02 is affected
NOTICE: Child foregn table child03 rejected 'alter tempmin set
default'
What do you think about this? It looks a bit too loud for me
though...
I think that's a good idea.
I just
Hello,
Then the second issue, however I don't have enough idea of how
ALTER TABLE works, the complexity would be reduced if acceptance
chek for alter actions would done on foreign server or data
wrapper side, not on the core of ALTER TABLE. It would also be a
help to output error
Hi,
While compiling on clang, I noticed the following warning:
pg_backup_archiver.c:1950:32: warning: comparison of constant -1 with
expression of type 'ArchiveFormat' (aka 'enum _archiveFormat') is always
false
[-Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare]
if ((AH-format =
(2014/02/21 15:23), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
NOTICE: Child foregn table child01 is affected.
NOTICE: Child foregn table child02 is affected
NOTICE: Child foregn table child03 rejected 'alter tempmin set
default'
What do you think about this? It looks a bit too loud for me
though...
I think
44 matches
Mail list logo
