Alvaro Herrera writes:
Why not just use an unsigned 64 bit variable? Also, perhaps
palloc_huge() avoids the whole problem in the first place ...
Ja, that crossed my mind too, but the current limit is already far
beyond anything that is usually configured for per-backend memory use,
so I
Piotr Stefaniak writes:
s/int/Size/ doesn't fix anything on 32-bit machines.
Postgres requires twos-complement representation, so that the
assumption that signed integer types wrap around on overflow can be
safely made.
Thanks for the clarification!
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-06-03 15:01:46 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
One idea I had was: what if the oldestMulti pointed to another multi
earlier in the same 0046 file, so that it is read-as-zeroes (and the
file is created), and then a subsequent multixact truncate tries to read
a
On June 3, 2015 9:42:21 PM GMT+02:00, Andreas Seltenreich
andreas.seltenre...@credativ.de wrote:
Piotr Stefaniak writes:
s/int/Size/ doesn't fix anything on 32-bit machines.
Postgres requires twos-complement representation, so that the
assumption that signed integer types wrap around on
On 06/02/2015 11:55 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net
mailto:and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 05/15/2015 02:21 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
Find the patch which gets rid of rmtree usage. I have made it as
a separate
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
Hm. If GetOldestMultiXactOnDisk() gets the starting point by scanning
the disk it'll always get one at a segment boundary, right? I'm not sure
On 5/29/15 10:21 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 5/28/15 10:15 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
I was a puzzled by src/backend/utils/fmgr/README and fmgr.h's
descriptions of fcinfo-flinfo-fn_extra (FmgrInfo.fn_extra) as they
seem to conflict with actual usage.
The docs suggest that fl_extra is for the
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
While testing this (with inconsistent-multixact-fix-master.patch applied,
FWIW), I noticed a nearby bug with a similar symptom. TruncateMultiXact()
omits the nextMXact==oldestMXact special case found in each other
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:32 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Andreas Seltenreich wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Andreas Seltenreich andreas.seltenre...@credativ.de writes:
The scary one is due to an integer overflow the attached patch also
fixes.
On 6/2/15 4:58 PM, David Steele wrote:
On 5/31/15 1:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Hm. I think the impact on third-party backup tools would be rather bad,
but there's a simple modification of the idea that might fix that:
just always create pg_xlog as a symlink to pg_xjournal during initdb.
Anybody
Robert Haas wrote:
So here's a patch taking a different approach.
I tried to apply this to 9.3 but it's messy because of pgindent. Anyone
would have a problem with me backpatching a pgindent run of multixact.c?
Also, you have a new function SlruPageExists, but we already have
On May 24, 2015 6:42 AM, Nils Goroll sl...@schokola.de wrote:
Hi Jeff and all,
On 23/05/15 22:13, Jeff Janes wrote:
Are you sure it is the read IO that causes the problem?
Yes. Trouble is here that we are talking about a 361 GB table
List of relations
On 3 June 2015 at 14:50, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
I
would define the subject matter as bug fixes, testing and review, not
restructuring, testing and review. Different code structures are
clearest
to different hackers. Restructuring, on average, adds bugs even more
quickly
Subject changed from Re: [CORE] postpone next week's release.
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:48:45PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Well, I think we stop what we are doing, focus on restructuring,
testing, and reviewing areas that historically have had problems, and
when we are done, we can look to
On 2015-06-03 09:50:49 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
Second, I would define the subject matter as bug fixes, testing and
review, not restructuring, testing and review. Different code
structures are clearest to different hackers. Restructuring, on
average, adds bugs even more quickly than feature
On 06/03/2015 07:18 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-06-03 09:50:49 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
Second, I would define the subject matter as bug fixes, testing and
review, not restructuring, testing and review. Different code
structures are clearest to different hackers. Restructuring, on
On 3 June 2015 at 20:04, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-06-03 18:54:24 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
OK, here we go.
Hm. Wouldn't random sampling be better than what you do? If your queries
have a pattern to them (e.g. you always issue the same 10 queries in
succession), this
On 06/03/2015 06:50 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
Subject changed from Re: [CORE] postpone next week's release.
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:48:45PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
If we have to totally stop feature development until we are all happy
with the code we have, so be it. If people feel they
Andreas Seltenreich wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Andreas Seltenreich andreas.seltenre...@credativ.de writes:
The scary one is due to an integer overflow the attached patch also
fixes.
s/int/Size/ doesn't fix anything on 32-bit machines.
Well, it changes the signedness
Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
Uh. I'm pretty sure there were some back when that patch went in. And
there definitely used to be a couple earlier. I guess itanium really is
dying (mixed bad: It's a horrible architecture, but more coverage would
still be good).
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
Consider this case:
postgres=# select '{c:5, a:6, b:7}'::jsonb - 1;
?column?
--
{a: 6, c: 5}
(1 row)
Clearly anyone expecting the value a to be removed here would be in
for a surprise. Moreover,
I've noticed some more issues with the jsonb documentation, and the
new jsonb stuff generally. I didn't set out to give Andrew feedback on
the semantics weeks after feature freeze, but unfortunately this feels
like another discussion that we need to have now rather than later.
operator jsonb -
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:52 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 06/02/2015 11:55 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net
mailto:and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Well, it seems to me the new function is being altogether way too
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Really, the whole question of how this code goes past the open() failure
in SlruPhysicalReadPage baffles me. I don't see any possible way for
the file to be created ...
Hmm, the checkpointer can call TruncateMultiXact when in recovery, on
restartpoints. I wonder if in
On 2015-06-03 15:01:46 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andres Freund wrote:
That's not necessarily the case though, given how the code currently
works. In a bunch of places the SLRUs are accessed *before* having been
made consistent by WAL replay. Especially if several checkpoints/vacuums
On 2015-06-03 00:42:55 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Thomas Munro wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
My guess is that the file existed, and perhaps had one or more pages,
but the wanted page doesn't exist, so we tried to read but got 0
On 2015-06-03 10:21:28 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
So, historically, this is what the period between feature freeze and
beta1 was for; the consolidation phase was supposed to deal with this.
The problem over the last few years, by my observation, has been that
consolidation has been left to
Thomas Munro wrote:
I have finally reproduced that error! See attached repro shell script.
The conditions are:
1. next multixact == oldest multixact (no active multixacts, pointing
past the end)
2. next multixact would be the first item on a new page (multixact % 2048 ==
0)
3. the
On 05/31/2015 03:51 AM, David Steele wrote:
On 5/30/15 8:38 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 05/30/2015 03:48 PM, David Steele wrote:
On 5/30/15 2:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
What, in this release, could break things badly? RLS? Grouping sets?
Heikki's WAL format changes? That last one sounds
Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-06-03 00:42:55 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Thomas Munro wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
My guess is that the file existed, and perhaps had one or more pages,
but the wanted page doesn't exist, so
30 matches
Mail list logo
