Tom Lane-2 wrote
Unfortunately, while testing it I noticed that there's a potentially
fatal backwards-compatibility problem, namely that the COPY n status
gets printed on stdout, which is the same place that COPY OUT data is
going. While this isn't such a big problem for interactive use,
2014-03-12 7:10 GMT+01:00 David Johnston pol...@yahoo.com:
Tom Lane-2 wrote
Unfortunately, while testing it I noticed that there's a potentially
fatal backwards-compatibility problem, namely that the COPY n status
gets printed on stdout, which is the same place that COPY OUT data is
Thanks for your efforts!
Head patched
Diff
Select - 500K772ms2659ms-200%
Insert - 400K 3429ms 1948ms 43% (I am
not sure how it improved in this case)
delete - 200K
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
Thanks for your efforts!
Head patched
Diff
Select - 500K772ms2659ms-200%
Insert - 400K 3429ms 1948ms 43%
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Haribabu Kommi
kommi.harib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Wang, Jing
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Christian Kruse
christ...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 11/03/14 13:23, Amit Kapila wrote:
Could you please once check (if you are comfortable doing so) wherever
this patch is passing tuple, whether it is okay to pass it based on
visibility
rules, else I will
On Mar 12, 2014 1:46 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 03/11/2014 06:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Mind you, I wouldn't be unhappy to see it go away; it's a kluge and
always
has been. I'm just expecting lots of push-back if we try. And it's
kind
of hard to resist push-back when you
Josh Berkus wrote:
What makes these GUCs worse is that nobody knows how to set them; nobody
on this list and nobody in the field. Heck, I doubt 1 in 1000 of our
users (or 1 in 10 people on this list) know what a multixact *is*.
I won't contend your first statement, but multixacts are
On 03/10/2014 09:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
When GIN changes a metapage, we WAL-log its ex-header content and never use a
backup block. This reduces WAL volume since the vast majority of the metapage
is unused. However,
From: Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
MauMau escribió:
Do you know how I can reply to an email which was deleted locally?
I thought I could download an old mail by clicking raw link and
import it to the mailer. However, it requires username/password
input, and it seems to be different
From: Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
That, more or less. There is exactly zero provision in the Postgres
code for multiple threads to exist inside a backend process. It's
possible that PL/Java manages to completely insulate the Java world
from the C world, so that the C code never sees more than
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
The attached patch doesn't apply any more, but it looks like this
issue still exists.
Fixed.
Did you forget to push?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 03/12/2014 02:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
The attached patch doesn't apply any more, but it looks like this
issue still exists.
Fixed.
Did you forget to push?
Yep. Pushed now.
- Heikki
--
Sent via
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 11 March 2014 18:33, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
-1 to *requiring* validation for table-level options for exactly the
same reasons we no longer validate custom
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 03/11/2014 09:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
In particular, I'd like to see an exclusion that prevents local users
from having the same name as any global user, so that we don't have
ambiguity in GRANT and similar commands. This
From: Murtuza Mukadam murtuza.i.muka...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] git-review: linking commits to review discussion in git
To: Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Hi Heikki
We have linked git commits and reviews in
Hi,
A customer has reported us a strange behaviour regarding a rowtype
column with a domain subfield:
test=# CREATE DOMAIN my_int_not_null_1 AS INTEGER DEFAULT 1 NOT NULL;
CREATE DOMAIN
test=# CREATE TYPE my_int_rowtype AS (
test(# f1 INTEGER,
test(# f2 my_int_not_null_1
test(# );
On 12 Březen 2014, 0:41, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
ERROR: index row size 1416 exceeds maximum 1352 for index gin_idx
All index AMs have similar restrictions.
Yes, I know and I have no problem with restrictions in general. You
On 2014-03-12 10:03:42 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 03/11/2014 09:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
In particular, I'd like to see an exclusion that prevents local users
from having the same name as any global user, so that we don't
On 12 Březen 2014, 0:51, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
I think that in practice the
general recommendation will be that when indexing at the top level,
use jsonb_hash_ops. When indexing nested items, use the more flexible
Hi,
I am working on adding a functionality to PostgreSQL. I need to parse
the XML format query plan (produced by PostgreSQL v9.3) and save it in a
simple data structure (say C structure). I was wondering if PostgreSQL
already had any parsing functions implemented that I can use to do the XML
On 03/12/2014 09:36 AM, Ashoke wrote:
Hi,
I am working on adding a functionality to PostgreSQL. I need to
parse the XML format query plan (produced by PostgreSQL v9.3) and save
it in a simple data structure (say C structure). I was wondering if
PostgreSQL already had any parsing
It is another topic from the main thread,
I noticed the following message under the test cases that
takes heavy INSERT workload; provided by Haribabu.
[kaigai@iwashi ~]$ createdb mytest
[kaigai@iwashi ~]$ psql -af ~/cache_scan.sql mytest
\timing
Timing is on.
--cache scan select 5 million
create
Julien Tachoires julien.tachoi...@dalibo.com writes:
A customer has reported us a strange behaviour regarding a rowtype
column with a domain subfield:
Rowtypes in general do not support defaults for component fields.
Is build_column_default() the right place to handle that case ?
It's
Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com writes:
WARNING: pgstat wait timeout
WARNING: pgstat wait timeout
WARNING: pgstat wait timeout
WARNING: pgstat wait timeout
Once I got above messages, write performance is dramatically
degraded, even though I didn't take detailed investigation.
I
Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
But not sure how to define a unique
index that allows (joe, db1) to coexist with (joe, db2) but not with
(joe, 0).
and why you want that restriction?
So that if I say GRANT
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Yeah, what we really need is encapsulated per-DB users and local
superusers. I think every agrees that this is the goal, but nobody
wants to put in the work to implement a generalized solution.
Encapsulated would probably be the doable part. But
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Yeah, what we really need is encapsulated per-DB users and local
superusers. I think every agrees that this is the goal, but nobody
wants to put in the work to implement a
* Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I share your doubts as to how useful such a concept actually is, but
it'd work if we had real local users.
It can also do interesting things like ALTER SYSTEM, replication,
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
A local user with the superuser privilege would not be able to log into
another database, because superuser doesn't give you any extra privilege
until you've logged in.
Yeah, as
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
You could COPY over the hba file or sometihng like that :) Or just
pg_read_binary_file() on the files in another database, which is accessible
through SQL as well.
More directly, he could alter pg_authid
On 12 Březen 2014, 14:54, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
It is another topic from the main thread,
I noticed the following message under the test cases that
takes heavy INSERT workload; provided by Haribabu.
[kaigai@iwashi ~]$ createdb mytest
[kaigai@iwashi ~]$ psql -af ~/cache_scan.sql mytest
Rajeev rastogi rajeev.rast...@huawei.com writes:
On 11 March 2014 19:52, Tom Lane wrote:
After sleeping on it, I'm inclined to think we should continue to not
print status for COPY TO STDOUT. Aside from the risk of breaking
scripts, there's a decent analogy to be made to SELECT: we don't
On 02/26/2014 11:25 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 02/09/2014 12:11 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
I've rebased catalog
David Johnston pol...@yahoo.com writes:
Tom Lane-2 wrote
1. Treat this as a non-backwards-compatible change, and document that
people have to use -q if they don't want the COPY tag in the output.
I'm not sure this is acceptable.
I've mostly used copy to with files and so wouldn't mind if
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
In the 9.3.3 updates, we added three new GUCs to control multixact
freezing. This was an unprecented move in my memory -- I can't recall
ever adding a GUC to a minor release which wasn't backwards
compatibility for a
On 03/12/2014 12:09 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hi all,
a quick question that just occured to me - do you plan to tweak the cost
estimation fot GIN indexes, in this patch?
IMHO it would be appropriate, given the improvements and gains, but it
seems to me gincostestimate() was not touched by this
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com writes:
WARNING: pgstat wait timeout
WARNING: pgstat wait timeout
WARNING: pgstat wait timeout
WARNING: pgstat wait timeout
Once I got above messages, write performance is
On 03/12/2014 06:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
In the 9.3.3 updates, we added three new GUCs to control multixact
freezing. This was an unprecented move in my memory -- I can't recall
ever adding a GUC to a minor release which
Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
We've seen sporadic reports of that sort of behavior for years, but no
developer has ever been able to reproduce it reliably. Now that you've
got a reproducible case, do you want to
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 03/12/2014 06:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
In the 9.3.3 updates, we added three new GUCs to control multixact
freezing. This was an
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com
wrote:
On 03/12/2014 12:09 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hi all,
a quick question that just occured to me - do you plan to tweak the cost
estimation fot GIN indexes, in this patch?
IMHO it would be appropriate, given
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
David Johnston pol...@yahoo.com writes:
Tom Lane-2 wrote
1. Treat this as a non-backwards-compatible change, and document that
people have to use -q if they don't want the COPY tag in the output.
I'm not sure this is
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com
wrote:
On 02/26/2014 11:25 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.com wrote:
* This patch added a triConsistent function for array and tsvector
opclasses. Were you planning to submit a patch to do that for the rest of
the opclasses, like pg_trgm? (it's getting awfully late for that...)
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Could you perhaps commit the attached patch fixing the issues you
mentioned?
I committed this.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
On 03/12/2014 12:22 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Mar 12, 2014 1:46 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Yeah, what we really need is encapsulated per-DB users and local
superusers. I think every agrees that this is the goal, but nobody
wants to put in the work to implement a generalized
On 03/12/2014 07:42 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Preparation we do in startScanKey requires knowledge of estimate size of
posting lists/trees. We do this estimate by traversal to leaf pages. I
think gincostestimate is expected to be way more cheap. So, we probably
need so more rough estimate
On 03/12/2014 02:09 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 03/12/2014 12:22 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Mar 12, 2014 1:46 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Yeah, what we really need is encapsulated per-DB users and local
superusers. I think every agrees that this is the goal, but nobody
wants to
MauMau escribió:
The raw link only gave the mail in text format. I hoped to import
the mail into Windows Mail on Windows Vista, but I couldn't.
You might need to run a conversion process by which you transform the
raw file (in mbox format) into EML format or whatever it is that Windows
Mail
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote:
Local superusers (maybe this concept needs another name) would be able
to do the following things in a *single* database:
1 change permissions for other users on that database and its objects
What about bypass permissions, ala what superuser does
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Rajeev rastogi
rajeev.rast...@huawei.com wrote:
On 04 February 2014 14:38, Myself wrote:
On 4th February 2014, Christian kruse Wrote:
On 04/02/14 12:38, Fujii Masao wrote:
ISTM that the phrase Request queue is not used much around the
lock.
Using the
On 03/12/2014 11:25 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote:
Local superusers (maybe this concept needs another name) would be able
to do the following things in a *single* database:
1 change permissions for other users on that database and its objects
What about
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
My inclination now (see later traffic) is to suppress the
status report when the COPY destination is the same as pset.queryFout
(ie, a simple test whether the FILE pointers are
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 03/12/2014 02:09 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Well, if you really want my I want a pony list:
Local superusers (maybe this concept needs another name) would be able
to do the following things in a *single* database:
1 change permissions for other
Hello all,
I am Ashutosh Dhundhara from Thapat University, Patiala-India presently
pursuing Bachelors degree in Computer Science and Engineering.
This year I wish to work for PostgreSQL under the flagship of GSoC 2014. So
please help regarding this. I have a few questions :
1) Do I have to
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Ashutosh Dhundhara
ashutoshdhundh...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hello all,
I am Ashutosh Dhundhara from Thapat University, Patiala-India presently
pursuing Bachelors degree in Computer Science and Engineering.
This year I wish to work for PostgreSQL under the flagship
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:53 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
Places where tuple info not available
LOG: process 5788 still waiting for ShareLock on transaction 679 after
1014.000
ms
CONTEXT: while attempting to operate in relation public.idx_t1 of
database
postgres
The
Also, GiST index is faster for create/update operations. I really hope we will
improve jsonb indexing in the next one-two releases. For now I'd suggest people
index expressional indexes to index just interesting keys or use GiST.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
All:
I was just reading Michael's explanation of replication slots
(http://michael.otacoo.com/postgresql-2/postgres-9-4-feature-highlight-replication-slots/)
and realized there was something which had completely escaped me in the
pre-commit discussion:
select pg_drop_replication_slot('slot_1');
On 03/12/2014 11:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 03/12/2014 02:09 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Well, if you really want my I want a pony list:
Local superusers (maybe this concept needs another name) would be able
to do the following things in a *single*
Hi,
On 2014-03-12 12:00:25 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
I was just reading Michael's explanation of replication slots
(http://michael.otacoo.com/postgresql-2/postgres-9-4-feature-highlight-replication-slots/)
and realized there was something which had completely escaped me in the
pre-commit
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote:
On 03/12/2014 11:25 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote:
Local superusers (maybe this concept needs another name) would be able
to do the following things in a *single* database:
1 change permissions for other users
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Hi,
On 2014-03-12 12:00:25 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
I was just reading Michael's explanation of replication slots
(http://michael.otacoo.com/postgresql-2/postgres-9-4-feature-highlight-replication-slots/)
and
On 03/12/2014 12:03 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2014-03-12 12:00:25 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
I was just reading Michael's explanation of replication slots
(http://michael.otacoo.com/postgresql-2/postgres-9-4-feature-highlight-replication-slots/)
and realized there was something which
On 2014-03-12 15:18:04 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Hi,
On 2014-03-12 12:00:25 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
I was just reading Michael's explanation of replication slots
On 2014-03-12 12:23:01 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 03/12/2014 12:03 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2014-03-12 12:00:25 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
I was just reading Michael's explanation of replication slots
On 2014-03-07 17:54:32 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
So there are some unexplained differences there, but based on these results,
I'm still OK with committing the patch.
So, I am looking at this right now.
I think there are some minor things I'd like to see addressed:
1) I think there
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-03-12 15:18:04 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Hi,
On 2014-03-12 12:00:25 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
I was just reading Michael's
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
I'm still not sure how would that look. Does that mean I'd have to create
multiple GIN indexes - one for each possible key or something like that?
Can you give an example?
It could mean that you're obliged to create multiple
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Oleg Bartunov obartu...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, GiST index is faster for create/update operations. I really hope we will
improve jsonb indexing in the next one-two releases. For now I'd suggest
people
index expressional indexes to index just interesting keys
On 03/12/2014 12:26 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-03-12 12:23:01 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 03/12/2014 12:03 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
It seems like there's no way for a DBA to drop slots from the master if
it's rapidly running out of disk WAL space without doing a restart, and
there's no
On 03/12/2014 12:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Urgh. That error message looks susceptible to improvement. How about:
replication slot %s cannot be dropped because it is currently in use
I think that'd require duplicating some code between acquire and drop,
but how about replication slot
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Oleg Bartunov obartu...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, GiST index is faster for create/update operations. I really hope we
will
improve jsonb indexing in the next one-two releases. For now I'd
On 03/12/2014 04:10 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Oleg Bartunov obartu...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, GiST index is faster for create/update operations. I really hope we will
improve jsonb indexing in the next one-two releases. For now I'd suggest people
index
On 12 March 2014 19:00, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
All:
I was just reading Michael's explanation of replication slots
(http://michael.otacoo.com/postgresql-2/postgres-9-4-feature-highlight-replication-slots/)
and realized there was something which had completely escaped me in the
Andrew, Peter:
Just so I'm clear on the limits here, lemme make sure I understand this:
a) GIN indexing is limited to ~~1500chars
b) The value, which includes everything other than the top level set
of keys, is one item as far as GIN is concerned.
Therefore: we are limited to indexing JSON
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
One major use case for using treeish data types in the first place is that
you don't know when you're designing the database exactly what shape the
data will be. If you don't know that, then how are you supposed to know
On 03/12/2014 04:58 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
In any case, let's focus on what we have right now. I think that the
indexing facilities proposed here are solid. In any case they do not
preclude working on better indexing strategies as the need emerges.
I quite agree, didn't mean to suggest
Hi,
Here's an updated patch. I had to push the LIMIT processing into ModifyTable
to make the behaviour sane in parallel scenarios. As usual, please ignore if
you're busy with 9.4. I will work on better docs and more tests from now on
and am preparing to make a solid case for adding this.
On 12.3.2014 20:40, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
I'm still not sure how would that look. Does that mean I'd have to
create multiple GIN indexes - one for each possible key or
something like that? Can you give an example?
It could
On 03/04/2014 01:58 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 02/16/2014 01:51 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Thanks. I have to agree with Robert
On 12.3.2014 21:58, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
The use case you describe here doesn't sound like something similar to
full text search. It sounds like something identical.
I think this very depends on the definition of full text search.
In any case, let's focus on what we have right now. I
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
I think that's unfounded assumption. Many users actually have very
little control over the documents or queries - a nice example may be the
mail archive, with headers stored in a hstore/jsonb. I have absolutely
no control over
On 12.3.2014 21:55, Josh Berkus wrote:
Andrew, Peter:
Just so I'm clear on the limits here, lemme make sure I understand this:
a) GIN indexing is limited to ~~1500chars
The exact message I get is this:
ERROR: index row size 1944 exceeds maximum 1352 for index tmp_idx
so it's 1352B. But
* Tomas Vondra (t...@fuzzy.cz) wrote:
So I think it's quite difficult to give simple and exact explanation in
the docs, other than there are limits, but it's difficult to say when
you hit them.
Arrays have more-or-less the same issue...
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
On 12.3.2014 22:43, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
I think that's unfounded assumption. Many users actually have very
little control over the documents or queries - a nice example may be the
mail archive, with headers stored in a
Oops. Of course shouldn't try and change how INSERT works. Latest version
attached.
♜
update_delete_order_by_limit_v2.diff
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I haven't touched pg_dump yet, but if this proposed design sits well
with everyone, my intention is that the dump output will contain the
pg_register_option_namespace() calls necessary so that a table
definition
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Ok, great. Committed!
Awesome.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
On 12 March 2014 19:00, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
All:
I was just reading Michael's explanation of replication slots
(http://michael.otacoo.com/postgresql-2/postgres-9-4-feature-highlight-replication-slots/)
and
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Julien Tachoires julien.tachoi...@dalibo.com writes:
A customer has reported us a strange behaviour regarding a rowtype
column with a domain subfield:
Rowtypes in general do not support defaults for component fields.
And
Hi,
On 13/03/14 03:27, Fujii Masao wrote:
Committed!
Thank you very much!
Best regards,
--
Christian Kruse http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services
pgpkDoVMmXIL4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Isn't this just a case of creating a suitable operator and an exclusion
constraint? Defining the constraint in BKI might require extra
infrastructure, but it should be possible.
Except that we don't have the
On 12 March 2014 23:17, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
On 12 March 2014 19:00, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
All:
I was just reading Michael's explanation of replication slots
On the pgsql-packagers list, there has been some (OT for that list)
discussion of whether commit 9a57858f1103b89a5674f0d50c5fe1f756411df6
is sufficiently serious to justify yet another immediate minor release
of 9.3.x. The relevant questions seem to be:
1. Is it really bad?
2. Does it affect a
Hello,
On 03/12/2014 09:36 AM, Ashoke wrote:
Hi,
I am working on adding a functionality to PostgreSQL. I need to parse
the XML format query plan (produced by PostgreSQL v9.3) and save it in
a simple data structure (say C structure). I was wondering if
...
The only XML parsing
On 03/12/2014 03:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
I don't like the idea of using reloptions to let people attach
arbitrary unvalidated settings to tables. I consider the way things
work with GUCs to be a bug, not a feature, and definitely not
something I want to propagate into every other area of
On 03/12/2014 04:52 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
On 12 March 2014 23:17, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
I'm not clear on why would dropping an active replication slot would
solve disk space problems related to WAL. I
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Except that we don't have the infrastructure to perform such checks
(neither partial, nor expression indexes, no exclusion constraints) on
system tables atm. So it's not a
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
