* From: Amit Kapila
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Christian Ullrich ch...@chrullrich.net
wrote:
There are some possible solutions:
- pg_ctl could set an environment variable (unless it has to be
compatible with postmasters from different versions, and it does
not, does it?).
On 04/13/2014 11:39 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
However, I just noticed that there's a race condition between PREPARE
TRANSACTION and COMMIT/ROLLBACK PREPARED. PostPrepare_Locks runs after
the prepared transaction is already marked as fully prepared. That means
that by the time we get to
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 05:46:20PM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
On 04/13/14 14:22, Jan Wieck wrote:
On 04/13/14 08:27, Marko Kreen wrote:
I think you need to do SET_VARSIZE also here. Alternative is to
move SET_VARSIZE after sort_snapshot().
And it seems the drop-double-txid logic should be
Thanks for helping me out everyone. I ended up simply using the numeric
type (I didn't realize it could support such large numbers) and writing the
hex-to-numeric conversion functions in my application code.
On 11 April 2014 12:27, Leon Smith leon.p.sm...@gmail.com wrote:
pgmp is also worth
Attached is a small patch to improve create_foreign_table.sgml.
Thanks,
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_foreign_table.sgml
b/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_foreign_table.sgml
index 06a7087..4a8cf38 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_foreign_table.sgml
+++
On 04/12/2014 05:03 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-04-12 09:47:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
On 04/12/2014 12:07 AM, Jan Wieck wrote:
the Slony team has been getting seldom reports of a problem with the
txid_snapshot data type.
The symptom is
On 2014-04-14 12:15:30 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Hmm. There's a field in GlobalTransactionData called locking_xid, which is
used to mark the XID of the transaction that's currently operating on the
prepared transaction. At prepare, that ensures that the transaction cannot
be committed
On 24 March 2014 10:25, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
Brief summary of the current approach that has been revised from my
original submission through the discussion on pgsql-hackers:
The plannode was renamed to CustomPlan, instead of CustomScan, because
it dropped all the
On 14 April 2014 02:50, Thomas Mayer thomas.ma...@student.kit.edu wrote:
Hello David,
thanks for your work. The results look promising.
Thanks
What I'm missing is a test case with multiple fields in the partition by
clauses:
I've modified the patch and added some regression tests that
On 14 April 2014 03:31, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
David Rowley dgrow...@gmail.com writes:
On this thread
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/52c6f712.6040...@student.kit.eduthere
was some discussion around allowing push downs of quals that happen to be
in every window clause of
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Ian Barwick i...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Apologies again, that was ill-thought out. Revised patch attached with only
the additions related to event triggers, and the small fix for ALTER TRIGGER
mentioned above which ensures RENAME TO is applied only when ALTER
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Gregory Smith gregsmithpg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/6/14 2:46 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Proposed options are interesting for enterprise using, when you have a
some more smart tools for log entry processing, and when you need a complex
view about performance of
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure if this is exactly the right way to do it, but I agree
2014-04-14 14:57 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Gregory Smith gregsmithpg...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 4/6/14 2:46 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Proposed options are interesting for enterprise using, when you have a
some more smart tools for log entry
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Ian Barwick i...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Apologies again, that was ill-thought out. Revised patch attached with only
the additions related to event triggers, and the small fix for ALTER
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Jesper Krogh jes...@krogh.cc wrote:
On 15/03/14 20:27, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
That said, I didn't expect the difference to be quite that big when you're
appending to the end of the
On 7 April 2014 05:06, Rajeev rastogi rajeev.rast...@huawei.com wrote:
*Autonomous Transaction Storage:*
As for main transaction, structure PGXACT is used to store main
transactions, which are created in shared memory of size:
(Number of process)*sizeof(struct
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Should we try to install some hack around fastupdate for 9.4? I fear
the divergence between reasonable values of work_mem and reasonable
sizes for that list is only going to
On 13 April 2014 16:44, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-04-12 17:40:34 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
VACUUM sometimes waits synchronously for a cleanup lock on a heap
page. Sometimes for a long
On 2014-04-14 15:45:45 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 13 April 2014 16:44, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-04-12 17:40:34 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
VACUUM sometimes waits synchronously for a
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Etsuro Fujita
fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
Attached is an updated version of the patch.
I applied the first two hunks of this, which seem like clear
oversights; and also the bit fixing the constraint_name language.
I think the other changes deserve to be
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2014-04-14 14:57 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
I agree. I don't think the idea of pushing this into the
log_line_prefix stuff as a one-off is a very good one. Sure, we could
wedge it in there, but we've got an existing precedent
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-04-14 15:45:45 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 13 April 2014 16:44, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-04-12 17:40:34 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Andres Freund
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-04-14 15:45:45 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 13 April 2014 16:44, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
What I am not sure about is how... It's trivial to set
pg_stat_activity.waiting = true, but without a corresponding description
Hi,
A few days ago i was wondering why we use CREATE/DROP SERVER but then
when we want to GRANT/REVOKE we need to use FOREIGN SERVER.
of course options are:
1) modify both to accept both forms
2) modify one of them to accept both forms and use that way in all our
examples in docs
3) do nothing
On 2014-04-14 11:30:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-04-14 15:45:45 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 13 April 2014 16:44, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
What I am not sure about is how... It's trivial to set
pg_stat_activity.waiting =
Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
A few days ago i was wondering why we use CREATE/DROP SERVER but then
when we want to GRANT/REVOKE we need to use FOREIGN SERVER.
Because the SQL standard says so.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-04-14 11:30:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I wonder whether we should not try to fix this by making the process wait
on a heavyweight lock, if it has to wait. That would also get us out of
the rather grotty business of using a special-purpose
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-04-14 11:30:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I wonder whether we should not try to fix this by making the process wait
on a heavyweight lock, if it has to wait. That would also
On 2014-04-14 12:02:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-04-14 11:30:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I wonder whether we should not try to fix this by making the process wait
on a heavyweight lock, if it has to wait. That would also get us out of
the
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
I am just not sure whether it is okay to rearrange the code and call
On 5 April 2014 04:18, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Greg Stark st...@mit.edu writes:
Well in many cases stype will just be internal for many of them. That
doesn't mean they're the same.
Hm, I suppose it might if they have the same sfunc.
This is actually where I started but we
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
* I also left out the table documenting which aggregates have this
optimization. That's not the kind of thing we ordinarily document,
and it seems inevitable to me that such a table would be noteworthy
mostly for
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 5:03 AM, Etsuro Fujita
fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
Attached is a small patch to improve create_foreign_table.sgml.
OK, committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
I think we'll need to transfer of the locks earlier, before the
transaction is marked as fully prepared. I'll take a closer look at this
tomorrow.
Here's a patch to do that. It's very straightforward, I just moved the
calls to transfer
On 2014-04-14 12:21:09 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
AFAICS, the big advantage of something like this is that we'd get
proper deadlock detection, and that's not a trivial point.
Hm. Is this actually something we need? I am not aware of deadlock prone
scenarios involving buffer pins during normal
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
This makes me think that it's safer to just remove replication slot files
at the beginning of the recovery when both backup_label and recovery.conf
exist.
Well, we could do that, but that would preempt anyone who *does*
Tom Lane wrote:
In an ideal world, when we needed to wait for a cleanup lock, we'd cause
the lock manager to set up pre-granted sharable page locks for all the
processes currently holding buffer pins, and then wait for an exclusive
page lock. The current hack of signaling when you're the
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-04-14 12:21:09 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
AFAICS, the big advantage of something like this is that we'd get
proper deadlock detection, and that's not a trivial point.
Hm. Is this actually something we need? I am not aware of deadlock prone
On 2014-04-14 13:06:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-04-14 12:21:09 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
AFAICS, the big advantage of something like this is that we'd get
proper deadlock detection, and that's not a trivial point.
Hm. Is this actually
On 2014-04-14 12:51:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
The whole thing feels like we are solving the wrong problem, anyway.
IIUC, the complaint arises because we are allowing COMMIT PREPARED
to occur before the source transaction has reported successful prepare
to its client. Surely that does not need
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I wonder if the most natural way to express this wouldn't be to have a
heavyweight lock for every 2pc xact
'slot'. ResourceOwnerRelease(RESOURCE_RELEASE_LOCKS) should be scheduled
correctly to make error handling for this work.
That seems like not
On 2014-04-14 13:47:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I wonder if the most natural way to express this wouldn't be to have a
heavyweight lock for every 2pc xact
'slot'. ResourceOwnerRelease(RESOURCE_RELEASE_LOCKS) should be scheduled
correctly to make
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-04-14 13:06:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
In particular I'm not sold on the use-case
for being able to tell that a process is waiting without being able to
tell what it's waiting for. I can figure that much out already.
You can? How? It could
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-04-14 13:06:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-04-14 12:21:09 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
AFAICS, the big advantage of something like this is that we'd get
proper
On 04/14/2014 07:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'd prefer to leave the prepare sequence alone and instead find a way
to reject COMMIT PREPARED until after the source transaction is safely
clear of the race conditions. The upthread idea of looking at vxid
instead of xid might help, except that I see we
On 4/4/14, 10:07 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
If
somebody previously tried to do the correct thing and attached
PGDLLEXPORT to their own *function* prototoype, it would cause problems
now.
What is the difference (on affected platforms) between
Datum funcname(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS);
and writing
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Where this is a bit more interesting is in the case of sequences, where
resetting the sequence to zero may cause further inserts into an
existing table to fail.
Yeah. Sequences do have contained data, which makes
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
What is the difference (on affected platforms) between
Datum funcname(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS);
and writing (effectively)
PGDLLEXPORT Datum funcname(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS);
Datum funcname(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS);
or for that matter
Datum
Are there any plans to add in-place at-depth update operator for JSONB
type, e.g.:
UPDATE test SET attrs-'anwser' = 42 where attrs-'answer' = 41
On 04/14/2014 09:27 AM, kelas wrote:
Are there any plans to add in-place at-depth update operator for JSONB
type, e.g.:
UPDATE test SET attrs-'anwser' = 42 where attrs-'answer' = 41
Plans, yes. But not until 9.5, or maybe as an extension.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
[ assorted comments about custom-scan patch, but particularly ]
* The prune hook makes me feel very uneasy. It seems weirdly specific
implementation detail, made stranger by the otherwise lack of data
maintenance API calls. Calling that for every
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have run into a situation where bulk loading a table with fairly
narrow rows and two indexes causes WAL to be generated at about 20:1
or higher ratio to the actual heap data (table plus indexes).
There are 560 million loaded rows which ultimately
Hi,
On 2014-04-14 14:33:03 -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
checkpoint_segments = 96
checkpoint_timeout = 10min
I realize there are many things that can be done to improve my
specific scenario, e.g. drop indexes before loading, change various
configs, etc. My purpose for this post is to ask if it
On 4/14/14, 4:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2014-04-14 14:33:03 -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
checkpoint_segments = 96
checkpoint_timeout = 10min
I realize there are many things that can be done to improve my
specific scenario, e.g. drop indexes before loading, change various
configs, etc.
On 4/14/14, 12:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
One concrete reason not to do the proposed trivial hack is that the lock
readout views are asynchronous. Right now, if someone sees a process that
claims to be waiting but they don't see any entry in pg_locks, they know
they saw inconsistent state. If we
On 4/14/14, 12:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freundand...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-04-14 13:06:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
In particular I'm not sold on the use-case
for being able to tell that a process is waiting without being able to
tell what it's waiting for. I can figure that much
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/14/2014 03:17 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 4/14/14, 4:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-04-14 14:33:03 -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
I realize there are many things that can be done to improve my
specific scenario, e.g. drop indexes before loading,
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 09:34:14AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
The problem can be solved this way, but the only question here is whether
it is acceptable for users to have a new console window for server.
Can others also please share their opinion if this fix (start server in new
console)
On 4/14/14, 12:11 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I have some theories about the PostgreSQL buffer manager/clock sweep.
To motivate the reader to get through the material presented here, I
present up-front a benchmark of a proof-of-concept patch of mine:
On 4/14/14, 5:51 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/14/2014 03:17 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 4/14/14, 4:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-04-14 14:33:03 -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
I realize there are many things that can be done to improve my
specific
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:55 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
This makes me think that it's safer to just remove replication slot files
at the beginning of the recovery when both backup_label and recovery.conf
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-04-14 14:33:03 -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
checkpoint_segments = 96
checkpoint_timeout = 10min
I bet you'll see noticeably - while still not great - better performance
by setting checkpoint_timeout to an hour (with a corresponding increase
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/14/2014 04:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-04-14 14:33:03 -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
checkpoint_segments = 96 checkpoint_timeout = 10min
I bet you'll see noticeably - while still not great - better
On 2014-04-14 16:22:48 -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/14/2014 04:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-04-14 14:33:03 -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
checkpoint_segments = 96 checkpoint_timeout = 10min
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/14/2014 04:25 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-04-14 16:22:48 -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
That'll help performance, but lets say I generally keep WAL files
for PITR and don't turn that off before starting -- shouldn't I
be very surprised to
On 24 March 2014 10:25, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
Brief summary of the current approach that has been revised from my
original submission through the discussion on pgsql-hackers:
The plannode was renamed to CustomPlan, instead of CustomScan, because
it dropped all the
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:11:53AM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Has anyone thought about this in the last few years? I know that Tom
examined the LRU-K paper back in 2000 [5], but was discouraged by some
kind of contention or CPU overhead (although he did say he intended to
revisit the
* Joe Conway (m...@joeconway.com) wrote:
That's the thing. I'm sure there is tuning and other things to improve
this particular case, but creating over 20 times as much WAL as real
data seems like pathological behavior to me.
Setting things up such that you are updating a single value on each
* Jim Nasby (j...@nasby.net) wrote:
I think it's important to mention that OS implementations (at least all I
know of) have multiple page pools, each of which has it's own clock. IIRC one
of the arguments for us supporting a count1 was we could get the benefits of
multiple page pools
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I am glad you are looking at this. You are right that it requires a
huge amount of testing, but clearly our code needs improvement in this
area.
Thanks.
Does anyone recall the original justification for the recommendation
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 02:01:19PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
On 11/04/2014 16:45, Jack.O'sulli...@tessella.com wrote:
With point two, does this mean that any table with a bytea datatype is
limited to 4 billion rows (which would seem in conflict with the
unlimited rows shown by
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
[ assorted comments about custom-scan patch, but particularly ]
* The prune hook makes me feel very uneasy. It seems weirdly specific
implementation detail, made stranger by the otherwise lack of data
maintenance API calls. Calling that for
hi~ pg hackers,
I find some problems when use pg on FreeBSD.On FreeBSD,If installed
extension which pthread lib is used,for example plv8,pljava,imcs etc,when
query touch these extenstions,the PG backend will hang.
there is a solution,which configure postgresql with CFLAGS='-O2 -pthread'
and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/14/2014 05:40 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
This sounds like a great example of the unlogged table - logged
table use-case and makes me wonder if we could provide an
optimization similar to the existing CREATE TABLE + COPY under
wal_level =
With a client's code I have just managed to produce the following
assertion failure on 9.3.4:
2014-04-15 01:02:46 GMT [19854] 76299: LOG: execute unnamed:
select * from asp_ins_event_task_log( job_id:=1, event_id:=3164,
task_name:='EventUtcComputeTask', task_status_code:='VALID'
Bruce Momjian wrote
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 02:01:19PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
On 11/04/2014 16:45, Jack.O'
Sullivan@
wrote:
With point two, does this mean that any table with a bytea datatype is
limited to 4 billion rows (which would seem in conflict with the
unlimited rows shown
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Uh, I had not thought of this before but I think we need oids for toast
storage, which would explain this wiki text:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/BinaryFilesInDB
Storing binary data using bytea or text data types
Minus
On 04/14/2014 09:28 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
With a client's code I have just managed to produce the following
assertion failure on 9.3.4:
2014-04-15 01:02:46 GMT [19854] 76299: LOG: execute unnamed:
select * from asp_ins_event_task_log( job_id:=1, event_id:=3164,
Jov am...@amutu.com writes:
I find some problems when use pg on FreeBSD.On FreeBSD,If installed
extension which pthread lib is used,for example plv8,pljava,imcs etc,when
query touch these extenstions,the PG backend will hang.
there is a solution,which configure postgresql with CFLAGS='-O2
On 4/4/14, 10:44 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
I personally would very much like to get this patch commited. It doesn't
have much risk in destabilizing stuff, rather the contrary.
Peter, what's you opinion about the current state?
I opine it's committed. ;-)
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
and here the stack trace:
#0 0x00361ba36285 in __GI_raise (sig=6) at
../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:64
#1 0x00361ba37b9b in __GI_abort () at abort.c:91
#2 0x0075c157 in ExceptionalCondition
(conditionName=optimized out,
Craig, Tom, all,
I've been through the RLS code over the past couple of days which I
pulled from Craig's repo and have a bunch of minor updates. In general,
the patch seems pretty reasonable- except for the issues discussed
below. Quite a bit of this patch is tied up in plan invalidation and
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 05:45:56PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I am glad you are looking at this. You are right that it requires a
huge amount of testing, but clearly our code needs improvement in this
area.
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
I've uploaded the latest patch, rebased against master, with my changes
to here: http://snowman.net/~sfrost/rls_ringerc_sf.patch.gz as I don't
believe it'd clear the mailing list (it's 29k).
Please actually post it, for the archives' sake. 29k is far
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
Add TAP tests for client programs
I assume the buildfarm would need to be taught about this?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
I've uploaded the latest patch, rebased against master, with my changes
to here: http://snowman.net/~sfrost/rls_ringerc_sf.patch.gz as I don't
believe it'd clear the mailing list (it's 29k).
Please actually
On 04/14/2014 10:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
and here the stack trace:
#0 0x00361ba36285 in __GI_raise (sig=6) at
../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:64
#1 0x00361ba37b9b in __GI_abort () at abort.c:91
#2 0x0075c157 in
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 04/14/2014 09:27 AM, kelas wrote:
Are there any plans to add in-place at-depth update operator for JSONB
type, e.g.:
UPDATE test SET attrs-'anwser' = 42 where attrs-'answer' = 41
Plans, yes. But not until 9.5, or
On 04/14/2014 10:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
Add TAP tests for client programs
I assume the buildfarm would need to be taught about this?
Yes. It probably won't be a huge change, but it will need a bit of code.
cheers
andrew
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc wrote:
On 04/13/2014 10:19 PM, John Mudd wrote:
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Euler Taveira eu...@timbira.com.br
mailto:eu...@timbira.com.br wrote:
On 13-04-2014 00:40, John Mudd wrote:
I
On 04/14/2014 10:30 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 04/14/2014 10:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
Add TAP tests for client programs
I assume the buildfarm would need to be taught about this?
Yes. It probably won't be a huge change, but it will need a bit of
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Christian Ullrich
ch...@chrullrich.net wrote:
* From: Amit Kapila
Do you mean to say use some existing environment variable?
Introducing an environment variable to solve this issue or infact using
some existing environ variable doesn't seem to be the best way
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:21 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 09:34:14AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
The problem can be solved this way, but the only question here is whether
it is acceptable for users to have a new console window for server.
Can others also
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
I have checked that other place in code also check handle to
decide if API has failed. Refer function PGSharedMemoryIsInUse().
So I think fix
On 4/14/14, 7:43 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Jim Nasby (j...@nasby.net) wrote:
I think it's important to mention that OS implementations (at least all I know of)
have multiple page pools, each of which has it's own clock. IIRC one of the
arguments for us supporting a count1 was we could get
Committed, with your suggestions.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
97 matches
Mail list logo
