Hi Rukh,
(2014/08/15 6:18), Rukh Meski wrote:
Based on the feedback on my previous patch, I've separated only the
LIMIT part into its own feature. This version plays nicely with
inheritance. The intended use is splitting up big UPDATEs and DELETEs
into batches more easily and efficiently.
Be
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
> Attached WIP patch adds "-C (--concurrently)" option for reindexdb
> command for concurrently reindexing.
> If we specify "-C" option with any table then reindexdb do reindexing
> concurrently with minimum lock necessary.
> Note that we can
Hi all,
Attached WIP patch adds "-C (--concurrently)" option for reindexdb
command for concurrently reindexing.
If we specify "-C" option with any table then reindexdb do reindexing
concurrently with minimum lock necessary.
Note that we cannot use '-s' option (for system catalog) and '-C'
option a
> "Robert" == Robert Haas writes:
Robert> I can accept ugly code, but I feel strongly that we shouldn't
Robert> accept ugly semantics. Forcing cube to get out of the way
Robert> may not be pretty, but I think it will be much worse if we
Robert> violate the rule that quoting a keyword str
Le 8 août 2014 09:08, "Guillaume Lelarge" a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> As part of our monitoring work for our customers, we stumbled upon an
issue with our customers' servers who have a wal_keep_segments setting
higher than 0.
>
> We have a monitoring script that checks the number of WAL files in the
pg_
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> I have verified the patch and found that it works well for
> all scenario's. Few minor suggestions:
>
> 1.
> !values to the postgresql.auto.conf file.
> !Setting the parameter to DEFAULT, or using the
> !RESET variant, removes the
Thomas Munro wrote:
> While trying to produce the heap_lock_updated_tuple_rec case you
> describe (so far unsuccessfully), I discovered I could make SELECT ...
> FOR UPDATE NOWAIT block indefinitely on unpatched 9.3 in a different
> code path after heap_lock_tuple returns: in another session, UPDA
On 08/25/2014 09:44 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On 24 August 2014 22:04, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> On 22 August 2014 23:02, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Did you consider heap_lock_updated_tuple? A rationale for saying it
>>> doesn't need to pay attention to the wait policy is: if you're trying to
>>> lo
On 24 August 2014 22:04, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On 22 August 2014 23:02, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Did you consider heap_lock_updated_tuple? A rationale for saying it
>> doesn't need to pay attention to the wait policy is: if you're trying to
>> lock-skip-locked an updated tuple, then you either s
Folks,
Quoth our docs
(http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/sql-alterdatabase.html):
"The fourth form changes the default tablespace of the database. Only
the database owner or a superuser can do this; you must also have create
privilege for the new tablespace. This command physically moves
Thanks for the replies and thoughts.
On 08/19/14 18:27, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 08/20/2014 12:17 AM, John Lumby wrote:
I am attaching a new version of the patch for consideration in the
current commit fest.
Thanks for working on this!
Relative to the one I submitted on 25 June in
bay17
On 22 August 2014 23:02, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> heap_lock_tuple() has the following comment on top:
>
> * In the failure cases, the routine fills *hufd with the tuple's t_ctid,
> * t_xmax (resolving a possible MultiXact, if necessary), and t_cmax
> * (the last only for HeapTupleSelfUpdated, si
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 08/20/2014 03:42 PM, Arthur Silva wrote:
> > What data are you using right now Josh?
>
> The same data as upthread.
>
> Can you test the three patches (9.4 head, 9.4 with Tom's cleanup of
> Heikki's patch, and 9.4 with Tom's latest lengths-
On 24.8.2014 18:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tomas Vondra writes:
>> Regarding those leaks we've detected so far - is it the kind of leaks
>> that can happen only in testing with those specific flags, or is it
>> something that can happen in production too? (Assuming no one is running
>> with CLOBBER_CAC
Tomas Vondra writes:
> Regarding those leaks we've detected so far - is it the kind of leaks
> that can happen only in testing with those specific flags, or is it
> something that can happen in production too? (Assuming no one is running
> with CLOBBER_CACHE_RECURSIVELY in production, of course ;-
On 24.8.2014 18:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tomas Vondra writes:
>>> I stopped the already running test on addax and started the test on
>>> barnacle again. Let's see in a few days/weeks/months what is the result.
>
>> It seems to be running much faster (probably after removing the
>> randomization), a
Tomas Vondra writes:
>> I stopped the already running test on addax and started the test on
>> barnacle again. Let's see in a few days/weeks/months what is the result.
> It seems to be running much faster (probably after removing the
> randomization), and apparently it passed the create_view test
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <
hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
> On 07/25/2014 07:10 PM, Alexey Klyukin wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I'd like to propose a patch for checking subject alternative names entry
>> in
>> the SSL certificate for DNS names during SSL authentication
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 08/24/2014 09:40 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
>
>> Any suggestions?
>
> Another point I didn't raise first time around, but that's IMO quite
> significant, is that you haven't addressed why this approach to fully
> parallel seqscans is useful
Add --limit to limit latency under throttling
Under throttling, transactions are scheduled for execution at certain times.
Transactions may be far behind schedule and the system may catch up with the
load later. This option allows to change this behavior by skipping
transactions which are to
20 matches
Mail list logo
