2015-08-19 20:12 GMT+09:00 Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com:
On 12 June 2015 at 00:29, Tomas Vondra tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I see two ways to fix this:
(1) enforce the 1GB limit (probably better for back-patching, if that's
necessary)
(2) make it work with hash tables
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-08-19 09:41:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
In fact, they'd still need to use DNS balancing for Postgres,
because not everything connects with libpq (think JDBC for instance).
It already does support this though.
On 19 August 2015 at 12:55, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
2015-08-19 20:12 GMT+09:00 Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com:
On 12 June 2015 at 00:29, Tomas Vondra tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
I see two ways to fix this:
(1) enforce the 1GB limit (probably better for
On 2015-08-19 10:49:46 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
What happens the first time? Meaning I'm on wal_level=minimal and take a
base backup. Then when the replica first connects 10 minutes later, it
needs WAL back in time, which was logged at wal_level=minimal.
So you'd need to bump it up
On 2015-08-18 21:47:51 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 8/18/15 1:46 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
I don't think not requiring restarts is sufficient, having to twiddle a
bunch of parameters manually still is a lot more effort than people see
as necessary.
I agree that we want both. But
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 19 August 2015 at 12:55, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
Please don't be rush. :-)
Please explain what rush you see?
Yours. You appear to be in a hurry to apply patches that there's no
consensus on.
It is not difficult to replace
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Shigeru Hanada shigeru.han...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Ashutosh,
Sorry for leaving the thread.
2015-07-20 16:09 GMT+09:00 Ashutosh Bapat ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com
:
In find_user_mapping(), if the first cache search returns a valid tuple,
it
is checked
On 2015.08.19 at 09:21:50 +, Albe Laurenz wrote:
Yes, but that will only work reliably if the (read-only) standby does not
allow connections before it is promoted.
It would just take a bit more time for client and a bit more load for
server - to make sure that this connection is
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 04:30:39PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
On 2015-08-18 PM 10:43, David Fetter wrote:
After the first command is done, the second command would take exclusive
lock on table_name, scan the table to check if it contains any values
outside the boundaries defined by FOR
On 2015-08-19 09:41:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
In fact, they'd still need to use DNS balancing for Postgres,
because not everything connects with libpq (think JDBC for instance).
It already does support this though.
https://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/head/connect.html :
Connection
On 12 June 2015 at 00:29, Tomas Vondra tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I see two ways to fix this:
(1) enforce the 1GB limit (probably better for back-patching, if that's
necessary)
(2) make it work with hash tables over 1GB
I'm in favor of (2) if there's a good way to do that.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:23:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 18 August 2015 at 01:18, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
FETCH [in WITH]
I'd be a huge fan of this one. I'd love to see FETCH in
subqueries, too. Currently doing anything like
Robert Haas wrote:
A trivial patch is attached. It adds the condition that if EXECUTE is
preceded by GRANT itself preceded by nothing, then that completion
with PROCEDURE is skipped.
Thanks, I committed this. I don't think we usually back-patch tab
completion fixes, but I
On 18 August 2015 at 18:46, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
ISTM that it's not too hard to
a) make archive_mode PGC_SIGHUP
b) make wal_level PGC_SIGHUP
+1
c) automatically increase wal_level to logical whenever a logical
replication slot is defined
-1
It would be easier to
On 18 August 2015 at 18:31, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
2. Creating a partition of a partitioned table
CREATE TABLE table_name
PARTITION OF partitioned_table_name
FOR VALUES values_spec;
Where values_spec is:
listvalues: [IN] (val1, ...)
rangevalues: START
2015-08-19 21:29 GMT+09:00 Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com:
On 19 August 2015 at 12:55, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
2015-08-19 20:12 GMT+09:00 Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com:
On 12 June 2015 at 00:29, Tomas Vondra tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
I see two ways to
On 2015-08-18 20:36:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
Just thinking about this ... I wonder why we need to call
TransactionIdIsInProgress() at all rather than believing the answer from
the snapshot? Under what circumstances could TransactionIdIsInProgress()
return true where
On 18 August 2015 at 11:30, Amit Langote langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp
wrote:
There is no need to define tuple routing triggers. CopyFrom() and
ExecInsert() determine target partition just before performing
heap_insert() and ExecInsertIndexTuples(). IOW, any BR triggers and
constraints (on
Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
we may need a couple of overhaul around HashJoin to support large
size of data, not only nbuckets around 0x8000.
Perhaps, but this is a clear bug, introduced to the 9.5 code, with
an obvious fix; so I've pushed the change from 1 to 1L on that left
Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at writes:
Victor Wagner wrote:
It would just take a bit more time for client and a bit more load for
server - to make sure that this connection is read-write by
issuing
show transaction_read_only
statement before considering connection useful.
That's not
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On 2015-08-18 20:36:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I experimented with the attached patch, which replaces
HeapTupleSatisfiesMVCC's calls of TransactionIdIsInProgress with
XidInMVCCSnapshot, and then as a cross-check has all the return false
exits from
On 2015-08-19 17:51:47 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
That's doable - but what about manual base backups? And if they don't go
away, what about the ones that are generated by the
nightly/weekly/hourly/whatever pg_basebackup -x ones?
Good questions. I guess we could just make
I wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
I'm not sure about it, but it might be worthwhile to add a
TransactionIdIsKnownCompleted() check before the more expensive parts of
XidInMVCCSnapshot(). Neither the array search nor, much more so, the
subtrans lookups are free.
Hmmm... the
I would like to execute a trigger function (written in C) in one of my
background workers.
Didn't figure out how to do that not even if it's possible.
Currently my trigger function is called, but in the server-process
connected to the client who does the insert into ... .
Any hint/help is
On 19 August 2015 at 14:46, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-08-19 09:41:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
In fact, they'd still need to use DNS balancing for Postgres,
because not everything connects with libpq (think JDBC for instance).
It already does support this though.
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com writes:
Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
we may need a couple of overhaul around HashJoin to support large
size of data, not only nbuckets around 0x8000.
Perhaps, but this is a clear bug, introduced to the 9.5 code, with
an obvious fix; so I've
On 2015.08.19 at 15:35:17 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
I think we do need some way of saying that a readonly connection is OK. So
I had such thing in my propsal (boolean parameter readonly).
But haven't yet checked if it is compatible with jdbc syntax.
the default would be to connect to each
I wrote:
I don't think it's anywhere near as clear as you think.
Ah, scratch that --- I was looking at the wrong my_log2() call.
-ENOCAFFEINE.
I'm still doubtful that this is the only overflow risk in that new
ExecChooseHashTableSize code, though. For instance, the only reason the
line
On 19 August 2015 at 16:21, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
I'm not sure about it, but it might be worthwhile to add a
TransactionIdIsKnownCompleted() check before the more expensive parts of
XidInMVCCSnapshot(). Neither the array
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-08-19 10:49:46 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
What happens the first time? Meaning I'm on wal_level=minimal and take
a
base backup. Then when the replica first connects 10 minutes later, it
needs WAL back in
On 19 August 2015 at 14:53, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 19 August 2015 at 12:55, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
Please don't be rush. :-)
Please explain what rush you see?
Yours. You appear to be in a hurry to apply patches
Here we are discussing load-balancing on the client level, not on the
statement level.
I see.
Suppose that we have 100 readonly clients and 3 standby servers + master.
If all clients specify all four servers in the their connect strings,
and connect randomly to them, each server would have
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm still doubtful that this is the only overflow risk in that
new ExecChooseHashTableSize code, though.
KaiGai already pointed that out on this thread and I completely
agree; but I figured that I might as well fix the clear bug with an
obvious fix that was
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:45 PM, ''Victor Wagner *EXTERN*' *EXTERN*'
*EXTERN* vi...@wagner.pp.ru wrote:
On 2015.08.19 at 15:35:17 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
I think we do need some way of saying that a readonly connection is OK.
So
I had such thing in my propsal (boolean parameter
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, committed.
I spent some time today reviewing the commited patch. So far my only
major complaint is that I think the comments are only insufficiently
documenting the approach taken:
Stuff like avoiding ABA type
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com writes:
Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
we may need a couple of overhaul around HashJoin to support large
size of data, not only nbuckets around 0x8000.
Perhaps, but this is a clear bug, introduced to the 9.5
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 07:15:30AM +, Laurenz Albe wrote:
Victor Wagner wrote:
I wonder how useful this is at the present time.
Maybe a better idea would be:
host=db1.myorg.com,db2.myorg.com port=5432,2345
I think if we're going to provide multiple sets of connection info, we
should
On 2015-08-19 10:55:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
My own thought about reducing the cost of XidInMVCCSnapshot, if that
proves necessary, is that maybe it would be worth the trouble to sort
the arrays so we could use binary search. That would increase the
cost of snapshot acquisition noticeably
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 05:37:31PM +0200, jacques klein wrote:
I would like to execute a trigger function (written in C) in one of my
background workers.
Didn't figure out how to do that not even if it's possible.
You can write your trigger function in such a way as not to do the
usual check
On 2015.08.20 at 00:17:35 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
But once connection is established, each client works with one
server (at least until communication failure occurs and it would call
PQreset. In this case it has to reprepare statements anyway).
One downside of this is, if one of the
Victor Wagner vi...@wagner.pp.ru writes:
On 2015.08.20 at 00:17:35 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
One downside of this is, if one of the standby servers is not
responding, every time clients will be blocked by the server before
giving up the connection trial. This could last for hours (for
This
I looked into the crash reported in bug #13579. The proximate cause
of the crash is that PLyString_ToComposite does this:
PLy_output_datum_func2(info-out.d, typeTup,
exec_ctx-curr_proc-langid,
exec_ctx-curr_proc-trftypes);
without any
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
BTW, did you register the patch on the upcoming commit-fest?
Not yet, it is in WIP status.
I think it may be a helpful feature, if we can add alternative
subquery-path towards cte-scan on set_cte_pathlist() and choose
Well, sorry David, I don't understand what you mean,
let me explain what I want to do: in short, IPC between background
workers.
I am trying to transform my app. from a multi-threaded C SQL-client into
some background workers, execution speed beeing the goal (avoid
network io).
Worker
Hi
2015-08-19 21:33 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
I miss a functionality that helps with parsing any identifier to basic
three parts - database, schema, objectname. We have this function
internally, but it is not available for SQL
On 2015-08-19 AM 02:57, Marc Mamin wrote:
2. Creating a partition of a partitioned table
CREATE TABLE table_name
PARTITION OF partitioned_table_name
FOR VALUES values_spec;
Where values_spec is:
listvalues: [IN] (val1, ...)
Would it make sense to allow one complementary partition to
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
I miss a functionality that helps with parsing any identifier to basic
three parts - database, schema, objectname. We have this function
internally, but it is not available for SQL layer.
FUNCTION parse_ident(IN ident text, OUT dbname text, OUT
On 08/19/2015 04:59 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
I like the idea of a regular partitioning step because it is how you
design such tables - lets use monthly partitions.
This gives sanely terse syntax, rather than specifying pages and pages
of exact values in DDL
PARTITION BY RANGE ON
On 19 August 2015 at 21:10, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 08/19/2015 04:59 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
I like the idea of a regular partitioning step because it is how you
design such tables - lets use monthly partitions.
This gives sanely terse syntax, rather than specifying pages
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wrote:
Just thinking about this ... I wonder why we need to call
TransactionIdIsInProgress() at all rather than believing the answer from
the snapshot? Under what circumstances could TransactionIdIsInProgress()
return
On 08/18/2015 04:40 PM, Qingqing Zhou wrote:
Attached please find the WIP patch and also the ANALYZE results.
Notes: the patch may not directly apply to head as some network issue
here so my Linux box can't talk to git server.
So, one of the things we previously mentioned is that currently
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
On 08/18/2015 04:40 PM, Qingqing Zhou wrote:
Attached please find the WIP patch and also the ANALYZE results.
Notes: the patch may not directly apply to head as some network issue
here so my Linux box can't talk to git server.
So, one of the things we
Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com writes:
The hints you add end in a new line, which then gives two new lines once
they are emitted. This is contrary to how other HINTs are formatted.
Other HINTs are complete sentences (start with a capital letter, end with a
period).
But I think these belong
On 8/19/15 2:56 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
The currently regression test for VM is that we just compare between
the total number of all-visible and all-frozen in VM before and after
VACUUM, and don't check particular a bit in VM.
we could substitute it to the ANALYZE command with enough sampling
On 8/19/15 2:44 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Don't say parse names for things other than tables. Only a minority
of the types of objects used in the database have names that meet this
specification.
Really? My impression is that almost everything that's not a shared
object allows for
Bill Moran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 19:45:47 +0200
jacques klein jacques.k...@googlemail.com wrote:
Well, sorry David, I don't understand what you mean,
let me explain what I want to do: in short, IPC between background
workers.
I am trying to transform my app. from a
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 19:45:47 +0200
jacques klein jacques.k...@googlemail.com wrote:
Well, sorry David, I don't understand what you mean,
let me explain what I want to do: in short, IPC between background
workers.
I am trying to transform my app. from a multi-threaded C SQL-client into
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Franck Verrot fra...@verrot.fr wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:30 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
What seems more likely to lead to a usable patch is to arrange for the
extra information you want to be emitted as error context, via an error
context
Hello,
I miss the newer features xpath_table equivalent in xml2. Are you planning
to replace it with something?
Thank's
Michal
Ing. Michal Šalko
SQL specialista, vývojář
+420 549 494 572
mailto:sa...@iba.muni.cz sa...@iba.muni.cz
Masarykova univerzita, Institut biostatistiky
On 08/19/2015 01:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
On 08/18/2015 04:40 PM, Qingqing Zhou wrote:
Attached please find the WIP patch and also the ANALYZE results.
Notes: the patch may not directly apply to head as some network issue
here so my Linux box can't talk to
On 08/19/2015 01:18 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
On 19 August 2015 at 21:10, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com
mailto:j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 08/19/2015 04:59 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
I like the idea of a regular partitioning step because it is how you
design such tables - lets use
Ok, think I got it,
I can use LISTEN and NOTIFY to do my IPC stuf, will just have to see if
it's possible to listen in a worker, with a permanent server connection,
I guess.
(as I remember, I already did a listener 10 years ago in a C client
app.)
Thanks,
Jaquest K.
On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 16:54
Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to writes:
So I'm developing a patch to fix this issue, but I'm not
exactly sure what the configuration should look like. I see multiple
options, but the one I like the best is the following:
Add two new HBA configuration options: radiusfallbackservers and
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
I think SortSupport logic provides a reasonable way to solve this
kind of problem. For example, btint4sortsupport() informs a function
pointer of the fast version of comparator (btint4fastcmp) which takes
two Datum
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
Indeed, 6 of 8 grouping keys in this query uses bpchar() data type, so it is
natural comparison function consumed larger portion of CPU cycles.
Do we have any idea to assist these queries by the backend?
With
Hi,
attached is a significantly reworked patch for using the foreign keys in
selectivity estimation. The previous patch only really worked if the
clauses matched the foreign key perfectly (i.e. no additional join
clauses) - this patch attempts to relax those restrictions a bit.
This patch
On 08/20/2015 03:49 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Then on current master, I get these estimates (showing just rows,
because that's what matter):
while with the patch I get this:
And of course I forgot to include the plans from master, so here we go:
select * from f join a on (f1 = a1 and f2 =
I wrote:
I looked into the crash reported in bug #13579. The proximate cause
of the crash is that PLyString_ToComposite does this:
...
I'm inclined to think that maybe PLyString_ToComposite needs to be doing
something more like what PLyObject_ToComposite does, ie doing its own
lookup in a
Hi,
We use RADIUS authentication at $WORK, and it has one major flaw (well,
two, but I already fixed the other one this week): it only supports
specifying a single server, which as we might know, is bad for high
availability. So I'm developing a patch to fix this issue, but I'm not
exactly
On 2015-08-20 02:29, Tom Lane wrote:
Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to writes:
So I'm developing a patch to fix this issue, but I'm not
exactly sure what the configuration should look like. I see multiple
options, but the one I like the best is the following:
Add two new HBA configuration
Hi,
On 08/19/2015 01:55 PM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
Merge Join (cost=25374644.08..1160509591.61 rows=60521928028
width=24) (actual time=138347.979..491889.343 rows=776157676 loops=1)
Merge Cond: (ws1.ws_order_number = ws2.ws_order_number)
Join Filter: (ws1.ws_warehouse_sk
Hello KaiGain-san,
On 08/19/2015 03:19 PM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
Unless we have no fail-safe mechanism when planner estimated too
large number of tuples than actual needs, a strange estimation will
consume massive amount of RAMs. It's a bad side effect.
My previous patch didn't pay attention to
On 2015-08-19 PM 09:23, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 18 August 2015 at 11:30, Amit Langote langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp
wrote:
There is no need to define tuple routing triggers. CopyFrom() and
ExecInsert() determine target partition just before performing
heap_insert() and
I'll start a new thread for this, since my external sorting patch has
now evolved well past the original quicksort with spillover
idea...although not quite how I anticipated it would. It seems like
I've reached a good point to get some feedback.
I attach a patch series featuring a new, more
On 08/19/2015 05:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Barring objections, I propose to commit and back-patch this. The crash
can be demonstrated back to 9.1.
regards, tom lane
+1
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com writes:
Don't say parse names for things other than tables. Only a minority
of the types of objects used in the database have names that meet this
specification.
Really? My impression is that almost everything that's not a shared
object allows for a
On 12 June 2015 at 02:40, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
2015-06-11 23:28 GMT+09:00 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com
wrote:
The attached patch replaces this palloc0() by MemoryContextAllocHuge()
+ memset().
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:06 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wrote:
Just thinking about this ... I wonder why we need to call
TransactionIdIsInProgress() at all rather than believing the answer from
the snapshot? Under what circumstances could
TransactionIdIsInProgress()
return
On 2015.08.18 at 08:32:28 +, Albe Laurenz wrote:
I wonder how useful this is at the present time.
If the primary goes down and the client gets connected to the standby,
it would have read-only access there. Most applications wouldn't cope
well with that.
It is supposed that somebody
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Victor Wagner *EXTERN* vi...@wagner.pp.ru
wrote:
On 2015.08.18 at 08:32:28 +, Albe Laurenz wrote:
I wonder how useful this is at the present time.
If the primary goes down and the client gets connected to the standby,
it would have read-only access
On 2015.08.19 at 08:28:32 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Victor Wagner vi...@wagner.pp.ru wrote:
Behavoir
If PQconnectdb encounters connect string with multiple hosts specified,
it attempts to establish connection with all these hosts
On 2015.08.19 at 12:29:51 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
It seems that most people discussing in this thread think in millisecond
time intervals (failure and immediate reconnect).
Why not have this as a separate parameter (*_timeout or something like
that)?
Because it is not in the software
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Victor Wagner vi...@wagner.pp.ru wrote:
On 2015.08.19 at 08:28:32 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Victor Wagner vi...@wagner.pp.ru
wrote:
Behavoir
If PQconnectdb encounters connect string with multiple
Sure, I think what can help here is a testcase/'s (in form of script file
or some other form, to test this behaviour of patch) which you can write
and post here, so that others can use that to get the data and share it.
Sure... note that I already did that on this thread, without any echo...
On 2015.08.19 at 12:42:45 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
I wonder how extended protocol is handled by this proposal. Suppose
load balacing mode is enabled. PQprepare is executed on standby1. Then
PQexecPrepared gets called. This may be executed on standby2, which
will fail because there's no
Victor Wagner wrote:
I wonder how useful this is at the present time.
If the primary goes down and the client gets connected to the standby,
it would have read-only access there. Most applications wouldn't cope
well with that.
It is supposed that somebody (either system administrator or
On 2015-08-18 PM 10:43, David Fetter wrote:
After the first command is done, the second command would take exclusive
lock on table_name, scan the table to check if it contains any values
outside the boundaries defined by FOR VALUES clause defined previously,
throw error if so, mark as valid
On 2015.08.19 at 07:15:30 +, Albe Laurenz wrote:
Idea is that we don't need any extra administration actions such as IP
migration to do it. Clients have list of alternate servers and discover
which one to work with by trial and error.
Yes, but that will only work reliably if the
On 19 August 2015 at 00:49, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com writes:
When we check a tuple for MVCC, it has to pass checks that the inserting
transaction has committed, and that it committed before our snapshot
began. And similarly that the deleting
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Masahiko Sawada sawada.m...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have encountered the much cases where pg_stat_statement,
pgstattuples are required in production, so I basically agree with
moving such
On 2015-08-19 AM 02:57, Marc Mamin wrote:
2. Creating a partition of a partitioned table
CREATE TABLE table_name
PARTITION OF partitioned_table_name
FOR VALUES values_spec;
Where values_spec is:
listvalues: [IN] (val1, ...)
Would it make sense to allow one complementary partition to
Victor Wagner wrote:
Idea is that we don't need any extra administration actions such as IP
migration to do it. Clients have list of alternate servers and discover
which one to work with by trial and error.
Yes, but that will only work reliably if the (read-only) standby does not
On 2015.08.19 at 12:55:15 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
I think that failover procedure should begin before first connection is
ever established.
As far as I understand, failover gets initiated once the master server goes
down or is not accessible due to some reason, so for such cases if
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-08-18 13:24:54 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 8/18/15 12:35 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
If archive_mode=on or max_wal_senders0, then we need at least
wal_level=archive. Otherwise wal_level=minimal is enough.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Victor Wagner vi...@wagner.pp.ru wrote:
On 2015.08.19 at 12:55:15 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
I think that failover procedure should begin before first connection
is
ever established.
As far as I understand, failover gets initiated once the master
Hi,
On 08/20/2015 04:15 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hello KaiGain-san,
On 08/19/2015 03:19 PM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
Unless we have no fail-safe mechanism when planner estimated too
large number of tuples than actual needs, a strange estimation will
consume massive amount of RAMs. It's a bad side
96 matches
Mail list logo
