On 16 March 2016 at 23:54, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:34 AM, David Rowley
> wrote:
>> Yes me too, so I spent several hours yesterday writing all of the
>> combine functions and serialisation/deserialisation that are required
>> for all of SUM(), AVG() STDDEV*(). I also noti
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:34 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 16 March 2016 at 06:39, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> After looking at the parallel aggregate patch, I also looked at this one, as
>> it's naturally related. Sadly I haven't found any issue that I could nag
>> about ;-) The patch seems well baked
On 16 March 2016 at 15:04, Robert Haas wrote:
> I don't think I'd be objecting if you made PartialAggref a real
> alternative to Aggref. But that's not what you've got here. A
> PartialAggref is just a wrapper around an underlying Aggref that
> changes the interpretation of it - and I think that
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 7:23 PM, David Steele wrote:
> On 3/3/16 12:16 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
> >>
> >> This patch needs to be applied on top discard_hba_and_ident_cxt patch
> >> that is posted earlier.
> >
> > Here I attached a re-b
>Sorta. Committed after renaming what you called heap blocks vacuumed
>back to heap blocks scanned, adding heap blocks vacuumed, removing the
>overall progress meter which I don't believe will be anything close to
>accurate, fixing some stylistic stuff, arranging to update multiple
>counters autom
15.03.2016 22:28, David Steele:
On 3/4/16 2:56 PM, Vitaly Burovoy wrote:
On 3/4/16, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
I think that you should update documentation. At least description of
epoch on this page:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/functions-datetime.html
Thank you very much
On 15 March 2016 at 21:40, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Here's a new failover slots rev, addressing the issues Oleksii Kliukin
> raised and adding a bunch of TAP tests.
>
Ahem, just found an issue here. I'll need to send another revision.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
On 03/16/2016 03:50 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 3/8/16 9:12 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
I have one nitpick: why is one of the variables "true" while the other
is "on" in the example? I think both should be "on".
#syslog_sequence_numbers = true
#syslog_split_lines = on
Another possible impro
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 02:43:47 -0700
Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Constantin S. Pan
> wrote:
> > The backend just waits for the results from the workers and merges
> > them (in case wnum > 0). So the 1-worker configuration should never
> > be used, because it is as seq
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Constantin S. Pan wrote:
> The backend just waits for the results from the workers and merges them
> (in case wnum > 0). So the 1-worker configuration should never be used,
> because it is as sequential as the 0-worker, but adds data transfer.
This is why I wanted
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > We wouldn't want to end up returning different error messages for the
>> > same command under the same conditions just based, which is what we'd
>> > potentially end up doing if we used XLTW_InsertIndexUnique here.
>>
>> Perhaps we need a
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 12:14:51 +0530
Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Constantin S. Pan
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:42:26 -0400
> > David Steele wrote:
> >
> > > On 2/18/16 10:10 AM, Constantin S. Pan wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 23:01:47 +0300
> > > > Oleg B
Hello Alvaro,
If somebody specifies thousands of -f switches, they will waste a few
bytes with each, but I'm hardly concerned about a few dozen kilobytes
there ...
Ok, so you prefer a memory leak. I hate it on principle.
I don't "prefer" memory leaks -- I prefer interfaces that make sense.
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Mithun Cy
wrote:
> I will continue to benchmark above tests with much wider range of clients.
Latest Benchmarking shows following results for unlogged tables.
clients BASE ONLY CLOG CHANGES % Increase CLOG CHANGES + SAVE SNAPSHOT %
Increase
1 1198.326337 1328.0696
Hello, I returned to this.
At Sun, 13 Mar 2016 22:59:38 +0100, Tomas Vondra
wrote in <1457906378.27231.10.ca...@2ndquadrant.com>
> Oh, yeah. There was an extra pfree().
>
> Attached is v15 of the patch series, fixing this and also doing quite a
> few additional improvements:
>
> * added some b
Hello
I discovered a pretty weird code.
policy.c:1083
```
char *qual_value;
ParseState *qual_pstate = make_parsestate(NULL);
/* parsestate is built just to build the range table */
qual_pstate = make_parsestate(NULL);
```
policy.c:1125
```
char *with_check_value;
ParseState *with_
On 16/03/2016 05:45, James Sewell wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Julien Rouhaud
> mailto:julien.rouh...@dalibo.com>>wrote:
>
>
> I'm not too familiar with parallel planning, but I tried to implement
> both in attached patch. I didn't put much effort into the
> parallel_thr
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> > Here's patch which fixes the issue using Robert's idea.
>
> Please at least check your patches with 'git diff --check'
Thanks.
> before
> submitting them. And where it's not to
It seems to me a matter of definition of "available replicas".
At Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:13:48 +1300, Thomas Munro
wrote in
>
> Synchronous replication offers the ability to confirm that all changes
> -made by a transaction have been transferred to one synchronous standby
> -ser
Attached is a patch to mark a logical replication slot as dirty if its
confirmed lsn is changed.
Aesthetically I'm not sure if it's better to do it per this patch and call
ReplicationSlotMarkDirty after we release the spinlock, add a new
ReplicationSlotMarkDirtyLocked() that skips the spinlock acq
Hi,
PG9.5 allows us to add an oid system column to foreign tables, using
ALTER FOREIGN TABLE SET WITH OIDS, but currently, that column reads as
zeroes in postgres_fdw. That seems to me like a bug. So, I'd like to
propose to fix that, by retrieving that column from the remote server
when requeste
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Gather is a bit weird, because although it can project (and needs to,
> > per the example of needing to compute a non-parallel-safe function),
> > you would rather push down as much wo
22 matches
Mail list logo
