Re: [HACKERS] Mail thread references in commits

My solution requires that everything have an issue. E.g., hackers becomes a tracker. Sincerely, Jd On Nov 19, 2016 09:04, "Tom Lane" wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" writes: > > I wonder if now is the time (again) to consider an issue tracker. > > That

Re: [HACKERS] Mail thread references in commits

Sorry didn't see it. On Nov 18, 2016 12:44, "Robert Haas" <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Joshua Drake <j...@commandprompt.com> > wrote: > > Why not hash the URL? Something like: > > > > Http://postgresop

Re: [HACKERS] Mail thread references in commits

Why not hash the URL? Something like: Http://postgresopen.org/archive/743257890976432 Where the hash is derived from the message if? On Nov 17, 2016 17:40, "Alvaro Herrera" wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > > Andrew Dunstan writes: > > > I love seeing

Re: [HACKERS] Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0

On Apr 30, 2016 2:07 PM, Oleg Bartunov wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> > I'd not limited by the companies, individual developes are highly welcome. I'm afraid there are some. >   Oh, absolutely. I was just

Re: [HACKERS] pg_prewarm

So I wrote a prewarming utility. Patch is attached. You can prewarm either the OS cache or PostgreSQL's cache, and there are two options for prewarming the OS cache to meet different needs. By passing the correct arguments to the function, you can prewarm an entire relation or just the blocks

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL + Replicator developer meeting 10/28

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:46:42 +0200 Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 13:42 -0700, Joshua Drake wrote: With the recent open sourcing of Replicator, the team has been trying to come up with ways to ensure an open development process. In that light we have decided

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL + Replicator developer meeting 10/28

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:46:42 +0200 Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The current topics are: * New MCP architecture What's new ? I have some doubts about the current architecture based on my reading of replicator wiki, but would like to learn about the new architecture

[HACKERS] PostgreSQL + Replicator developer meeting 10/28

With the recent open sourcing of Replicator, the team has been trying to come up with ways to ensure an open development process. In that light we have decided to have our first release 1.9 meeting on Freenode. All people interested in participating in a discussion about the upcoming Replicator

Re: [HACKERS] psql Feature request \set query

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:06:59 -0400 Robert Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you're asking for more scriptability in psql. Personally I think that would be a great idea, but we need a lot more than what's being proposed here. We'll also need loops, conditionals, etc. We've had

Re: [HACKERS] psql Feature request \set query

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:43:44 -0400 Robert Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: True enough, but a car doesn't roll without at least four wheels. True, but I'm not sure why we'd need three other wheels to make this feature roll, or what those three wheels would be. Personally, I would never write

[HACKERS] Well its official, replicator is BSD

Hello, We finally got around to releasing Replicator as FOSS. It is BSD licensed and available here: https://projects.commandprompt.com/public/replicator/wiki (Yes it is a self signed cert, its on the list to fix). Enjoy folks! Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company since

Re: [HACKERS] TODO item: adding VERBOSE option to CLUSTER [with patch]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:34:04 -0500 Kevin Grittner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ccdev=# select pg_total_relation_size('DbTranImageStatus'); pg_total_relation_size 253952 (1 row) ccdev=# cluster DbTranImageStatus; CLUSTER ccdev=# select

Re: [HACKERS] The Axe list

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:28:29 -0700 Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Folks, It's that time again! Purging antiquated contrib modules. chkpass: this module is incomplete and does not implement all functions it describes. It's not really even useful as an Example since it uses crypt()

Re: [HACKERS] Block-level CRC checks

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:57:30 -0400 Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually we had someone on irc yesterday explaining how they were able to run zfs on debian linux, so that option might be closer than you think. Its user mode. Not sure I would suggest that from a production server

Re: [HACKERS] Block-level CRC checks

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:33:04 -0400 Jonah H. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to submit this for 8.4, but I want to ensure that -hackers at large approve of this feature before starting serious coding. IMHO, this is a functionality that should be enabled by default (as it is on

Re: [HACKERS] Block-level CRC checks

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:48:52 -0700 Jeffrey Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Practically all of them. Here is a good paper on various checksums, their failure rates, and practical applications. Parity Lost and Parity Regained

Re: [HACKERS] parallel pg_restore - WIP patch

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:10:44 -0400 Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, there are several funny things going on, including some stuff with dependencies. I'll have a new patch tomorrow with luck. Thanks for testing. O.k. I took at look at the patch itself and although I don't

Re: [HACKERS] parallel pg_restore

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:52:52 +0100 Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just as an FYI, by far the number one bottle neck on the multiple work restores I was doing was CPU. RAM and IO were never the problem. It would be useful to see a full breakdown of those results. Its in the

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches (for CommitFest:Sep)

that the gentlemen who wrote the patch kept it up to date and improved it over two release cycles suggests that there is significant interest in this somewhere. Joshua Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches (for CommitFest:Sep)

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:38:36 -0700 Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter, Yeah, but do we even have the slightest bit of information about what exactly would be required to achieve the required levels? And whether this patch does it? And whether there would be alternative, more

Re: [HACKERS] Where to Host Project

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:08:16 +0200 Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, cool. Stefan; what's your take on where we're at? yeah there is a box and a jail I set up a while ago but for various reasons the actual migration (planning and testing) never happened. I'm still prepared

Re: [HACKERS] parallel pg_restore

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:14:33 +0200 Stephen R. van den Berg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joshua D. Drake wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: There are in fact very few letters available, as we've been fairly profligate in our use of option letters in the pg_dump suite. j and m happen to be two of

Re: [HACKERS] parallel pg_restore

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:44:19 +0100 Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 15:05 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: j and m happen to be two of those that are available. I honestly don't have a terribly strong opinion about what it should be called. I can live with jobs

Re: [HACKERS] parallel pg_restore

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:50:43 -0400 Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 12:43 -0700, Joshua Drake wrote: On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:44:19 +0100 Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 15:05 -0400, Andrew Dunstan

Re: [HACKERS] parallel pg_restore

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:24:28 +0100 Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More importantly, I'm not convinced it's a good idea. It seems more like a footgun that will potentially try to launch thousands of simultaneous restore connections. I should have thought that optimal performance

Re: [HACKERS] Where to Host Project

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:05:36 -0700 David E. Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * LaunchPad does not offer svn or git, and i think they dont offer a home page service It uses Bazaar. WTF is that? I've never heard of it. Another git/mecurial/monotone style SCM. It does however allow

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL future ideas

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:54:53 +0200 Gevik Babakhani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear PG hackers, Has there been any idea to port PG to a more modern programming language like C++? Of course there are some minor obstacles like a new OO design, this being a gigantic task to perform and

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL future ideas

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:01:15 +0200 Gevik Babakhani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unless I am very off. C++ is a natural choice when porting (upgrading) ANSI C application. As far as I know, most universities teach some sort of OO programming language like JAVA or C# to help students understand OO

Re: [HACKERS] Where to Host Project

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:22:14 -0700 David E. Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * LaunchPad Is backed by PostgreSQL. It is the only logical choice :). Seriously though it is a good service. Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/

Re: [HACKERS] Do we really need a 7.4.22 release now?

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:57:19 -0700 Ron Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (c) are secretly praying for an excuse to upgrade anyway. heh -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States

Re: [HACKERS] Better auth errors from libpq

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:59:40 -0400 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: psql: FATAL: Ident authentication failed for user root HINT: Is pg_hba.conf set properly on the server? Seems pretty useless. What does set properly mean? There isn't even any good reason to think that the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 10:32:40 -0400 Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gregory Stark wrote: Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: My vote is to reject the patch and work on a config checker. +1 +1 Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company since

Re: [HACKERS] reducing statistics write overhead

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:23:18 -0400 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Pihlak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, as a simple optimization I am proposing that the file should be only written when some backend requests statistics. This would significantly reduce the undesired write traffic

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:32:16 +0300 Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have had this discussion before, I even submitted a patch to make them case insensitive. In retrospect I was wrong to submit that patch. SQL may be case insensitive but units are not. MB != Mb != mb , For

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 19:36:19 +0100 Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure if people want to do it the right way more power to them. What you're talking about is punishing people when they don't live up to your standards. I think I will defer to Andrew and Alvaro's opinion on the matter.

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] GUC source file and line number]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 16:04:12 -0400 (EDT) Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Section question: with those changes, would it then be reasonable to you to keep that column named default instead of giving it a less common name? You are adopting a very narrow mindset, which seems to be that

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:10:24 +0300 Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would equally solve this problem, as well as many others. AFAIK the config file is checked now, and if the check fails, the database won't start. Like apachectl configcheck ... E.g; we have the ability to

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 01:26:44 +0300 Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So Andrews opinion was that Mb (meaning Mbit) is different from MB (for megabyte) and that if someone thinks that we define shared buffers in megabits can get confused and order wrong kind of network card ? I was

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: new border setting in psql

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:23:50 -0500 Jaime Casanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 8:45 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm surprised that we don't have a general option to escape special characters. Perhaps that's the next small enhancement. darcy=#

Re: [HACKERS] can't stop autovacuum by HUP'ing the server

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:58:59 -0400 Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I'm willing to help debug this, however this is a busy production database and I need to be able to turn it off for a few hours a day. Would changing autovacuum_freeze_max_age be a solution ? Populate the table

Re: [HACKERS] initdb change

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 08:40:17 -0700 David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Folks, While initdb allows you to choose a directory for transaction logs, it can't already exist, so it can't be in its usual place under $PGDATA. I'd like to propose that this be allowed by having an alternate syntax

Re: [HACKERS] initdb change

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:04:01 -0700 David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When -X is set to existing, it would check whether pg_xlog is a directory and the only thing in $PGDATA. One way to do that is to add a new return code to check_data_dir() and a new branch of the case statement

Re: [HACKERS] initdb change

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:42:21 -0700 David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We either need to provide a way to initialize it at initdb, allow xlogs to be in table space or add a GUC for the location. There's already a way to specify where xlogs should be via -X/--xlogdir. Sorry should have

Re: [HACKERS] initdb change

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:12:03 -0700 David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: /var/lib/pgsql/data/ exists but is empty you can initdb within that directory. However if there is anything in it you can not. You are asking that if pg_xlog exists but is empty that we still be able to use the

Re: [HACKERS] initdb change

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:56:16 -0400 Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is what I was suggesting. Why should the xlog directory be treated specially? Consider the following: mount /dev/sda1 /var/lib/pgsql mount /dev/sdb1 /srv1/pgsql/pg_xlog (which has a link from

Re: [HACKERS] Implementing cost limit/delays for insert/delete/update/select

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:39:54 +0100 Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I think we should consider removing the {auto,}vacuum_cost_delay parameter or at least hiding and undocumenting it. It's a foot-gun and serves no useful purpose that merely lowering the {auto,}vacuum_cost_limit

Re: [HACKERS] [FINALLY] the TODO list has migrated to Wiki

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:28:57 -0300 Euler Taveira de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, While we're on this topic, I think we need put a link at [1] heading directly to (Official) Todo [2]. What we have ATM is Unofficial Todo Detail that is rather inconsistent. We should rename it to Todo

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:49:39 - Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Sure, why not? Clarity should always trump brevity. The only people who gain from a comment-less file are the ones who are already expert in it. You are

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-www] [FINALLY] the TODO list has migrated to Wiki

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:12:15 -0400 Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The move has been approved by Bruce, the current maintainer. I hope that he continues to maintain the new version. This is great! I only have one small request. The font is really small and I have pretty good

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-www] [FINALLY] the TODO list has migrated to Wiki

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:53:57 -0700 David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is great! I only have one small request. The font is really small and I have pretty good eyesight. Fixed :) Much better, thanks! Joshua D. Drake Cheers, David. -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997:

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:11:49 +0200 Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alvaro Herrera wrote: Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote: alternatively we could use some sort of #include mechanism to split most important and not so important. We already have an include mechanism. Using

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:48:06 +0100 Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Maybe there should be something in postgreSQL docs that warns users against using functions in any non-trivial circumstances, as functions are not expected to behave like the

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:12:16 -0400 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joshua Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes but part of this idea is valid. The fact is the majority of the postgresql.conf parameters don't need to be in there by default

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:48:20 -0400 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joshua Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, why not just make a one-eighty and say that the default postgresql.conf is *empty* (except for whatever initdb puts into it)? I guess

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:22:34 -0400 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm really not in favor of having comments in the conf file that try to tell you about stuff you might want to set, much less why. That task properly belongs to some kind of introductory chapter in the SGML docs. Novice

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:17:46 -0500 Kevin Grittner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, this sure looks scary: # maintenance_work_mem = 256MB #webserver with 2GB RAM I would agree. 2GB isn't that much memory as it is and that is a fairly heft amount of maintenance_work_mem. This isn't the days

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:29:52 -0400 (EDT) Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do I think it should be pushed back to 8.3.x; no. It is a feature. I don't consider the existing behavior a bug. I consider it a limitation and we don't back patch fixes for limitations. The bottom line

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:12:47 - Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ugh, you are heading in the wrong direction. The configuration file should be well documented: moving the documentation further away from it is the wrong idea, especially if it means firing up a web browser to do

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:47:13 -0400 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Joshua Drake wrote: Is our backpatch policy documented? It does not appear to be in developer FAQ. Seems we need to add it. I'm not sure that I *want* a formal written-down

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:43:11 -0400 Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: On Tuesday 19 August 2008 22:12:47 Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: moving the documentation further away from it is the wrong idea, especially if it means firing up a web browser to do so.

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:22:43 -0400 Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A formal policy that's any more detailed than what's in the FAQ today is a solution in search of a problem. Odd that the problem continues to rear its head though isn't it? This certainly isn't the first time it has

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:03:48 -0400 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Peter Eisentraut wrote: I can see that argument, but I think we can quite simply solve it if we provide a plain-text version of the configuration chapter of the documentation.

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:32:34 -0400 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On idea is for postgresql.conf to merely include other files: include 'sharedmem.conf' include 'compat.conf' ... That would definitely add complexity ... what would

Re: [HACKERS] A smaller default postgresql.conf

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:10:35 -0400 (EDT) Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another option would be to break up the conf like the above but do not include any of them in the main postgresql.conf (which is how I would argue it should be done). Thus if you want to modify logging, you

[HACKERS] PostgreSQL Conference: West - Call for Papers

The second annual PostgreSQL Conference: West is being held on October 10th through October 12th 2008 in the The Native American Student Community Center at Portland State University. We are currently accepting papers and you can submit your talks here:

Re: [HACKERS] How can I have 2 completely seperated databases in

Hello, Depending on your needs and transaction load per database you can easily run 30 databases on a machine with 2 Gig of RAM. You will of course have to use initdb for each cluster and change the tcp port for each cluster but it works just fine. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL