Re: [HACKERS] Audit of logout

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:13 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > > No. If we change it to PGC_SIGHUP, SHOW command does display > the changed value after a reload. It's the same behavior as other > PGC_SIGHUP parameters do. Attached patch just changes it t

Re: [HACKERS] SKIP LOCKED DATA (work in progress)

On 27 July 2014 14:31, David Rowley wrote: > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:49 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: >> >> Here is a new version of the patch with a single enum LockWaitPolicy >> defined in utils/lockwaitpolicy.h. >> > > That seems much cleaner > > A few more comments: > You seem to have lost the co

Re: [HACKERS] B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization)

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Greg Stark wrote: > I haven't looked yet. Can you describe what exactly the AC_TRY_RUN is > testing for? It's more or less testing for a primary weight level (i.e. the first part of the blob) that is no larger than the original characters of the string, and has no

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 pg_control corruption

On 07/27/2014 09:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > =?utf-8?B?5p2O5rW36b6Z?= writes: >> I have a PostgreSQL datadir named /export/pg94beta1_data/ which was >> initialized with PostgreSQL 9.4beta1, >> [ and 9.4beta2 won't start with it ] > > This is expected; you need to initdb. Or use pg_upgrade to upgra

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 pg_control corruption

Understand! Before I wrote last email, I had initialized a new db with PostgreSQL 9.4beta2 and restored the pg_dumpall data of /export/pg94beta1_data/ Thanks Best Regards! at 2014-07-28 00:35 +08, Tom Lane wrote: > =?utf-8?B?5p2O5rW36b6Z?= writes: >> I have a PostgreSQL datadir named /expo

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 pg_control corruption

=?utf-8?B?5p2O5rW36b6Z?= writes: > I have a PostgreSQL datadir named /export/pg94beta1_data/ which was > initialized with PostgreSQL 9.4beta1, > [ and 9.4beta2 won't start with it ] This is expected; you need to initdb. Or use pg_upgrade to upgrade the cluster. We had to change pg_control form

Re: [HACKERS] get_loop_count() fails to ignore RELOPT_DEADREL rels

David Rowley writes: > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> That patch is entirely bogus. What you should be asking is why >> get_loop_count is being applied to a relation that's supposedly been >> removed from the query. > hmm ok. After further investigation it seems that this i

Re: [HACKERS] building pdfs

Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 07/26/2014 06:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Andrew Dunstan writes: >>> Yes, I did that and generated a PDF, but I got an enormous number of >>> errors or warnings. See >>> for example. >> If they're things like "

Re: [HACKERS] B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization)

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > What may be of more interest to reviewers is the revised AC_TRY_RUN > test program that "configure" consults. I haven't looked yet. Can you describe what exactly the AC_TRY_RUN is testing for? If it's just whether the system supports strx

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 pg_control corruption

Hi,dear steven && pgsql-hackers I've encountered the similar phenonmenon with 9.4 . 1. environment 1.1 OS version postgres@lhl-Latitude-E5420:~$ cat /etc/issue Ubuntu 13.10 \n \l postgres@lhl-Latitude-E5420:~$ uname -av Linux lhl-Latitude-E5420 3.11.0-12-generic #19-Ubuntu SMP Wed Oct 9 1

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLESPACE MOVE command tag tweak

Alvaro, * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > Stephen Frost wrote: > > > > Of course, we handle this in 'GRANT' with 'GRANT ON ALL TABLES', so why > > > > not 'ALTER TABLE ON ALL TABLES IN TABLESPACE '? that does get > > > > pretty darn verbose but is at least a bit more in-line wi

Re: [HACKERS] SKIP LOCKED DATA (work in progress)

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:49 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > Here is a new version of the patch with a single enum LockWaitPolicy > defined in utils/lockwaitpolicy.h. > > That seems much cleaner A few more comments: You seem to have lost the comment which indicates that the values of the enum are impo

Re: [HACKERS] get_loop_count() fails to ignore RELOPT_DEADREL rels

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > David Rowley writes: > > In order to get my patch working with an Assert enabled build I've had to > > apply the attached patch. > > That patch is entirely bogus. What you should be asking is why > get_loop_count is being applied to a relation

Re: [HACKERS] B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization)

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Thanks for looking into this. Is anyone going to look at this? I attach a new revision. The only real change to the code is that I fixed an open item concerning what to do on WIN32 with UTF-8, where the UTF-16 hacks that we do there canno