On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 01:48:34 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 04:37:05 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 01:48:34 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 04:37:05 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 02:39:36 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
Do you think it is acceptable to consider that the user has to do the
cleanup of the old or new index himself if there is a failure?
The problem I see is that if you want the thing to be efficient you might end
up
doing step
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 03:55:35PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 9/24/12 3:43 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 24 September 2012 17:36, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
For me, the Postgres user interface should include
* REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
I don't see why we don't have REINDEX
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 04:37:05 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:55:35 AM Josh Berkus wrote:
On 9/24/12 3:43 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 24 September 2012 17:36, Josh Berkus
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 04:37:05 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Could you clarify what do you mean here by cleanup?
I am afraid I do
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
For me, the Postgres user interface should include
* REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
* CLUSTER CONCURRENTLY
* ALTER TABLE CONCURRENTLY
and also that autovacuum would be expanded to include REINDEX and
CLUSTER, renaming it to automaint.
FWIW, +1 to all those
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.frwrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
For me, the Postgres user interface should include
* REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
* CLUSTER CONCURRENTLY
* ALTER TABLE CONCURRENTLY
and also that autovacuum would be
Excerpts from Daniele Varrazzo's message of dom sep 23 22:02:51 -0300 2012:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
As proposed by Masahiko, a single organization grouping all the tools (one
repository per tool) would be enough. Please note that
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 3:25 AM, Satoshi Nagayasu sn...@uptime.jp wrote:
To solve this problem, I would like to have some umbrella project.
It would be called pg dba utils, or something like this.
This umbrella project may contain several third-party tools (pg_reorg,
pg_rman, pg_filedump,
On 21 September 2012 08:42, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm not familiar with pg_reorg, but I wonder why we need a separate
program for this task. I know pg_reorg is ok as an external program
2012/09/25 0:15, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 21 September 2012 08:42, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm not familiar with pg_reorg, but I wonder why we need a separate
program for this task. I know
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Excerpts from Daniele Varrazzo's message of dom sep 23 22:02:51 -0300 2012:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
As proposed by Masahiko, a single organization
For me, the Postgres user interface should include
* REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
I don't see why we don't have REINDEX CONCURRENTLY now. When I was
writing out the instructions for today's update, I was thinking we
already have all the commands for this.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
On 24 September 2012 17:36, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
For me, the Postgres user interface should include
* REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
I don't see why we don't have REINDEX CONCURRENTLY now.
Same reason for everything on (anyone's) TODO list.
Lack of vision is not holding us back, we
On 9/24/12 3:43 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 24 September 2012 17:36, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
For me, the Postgres user interface should include
* REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
I don't see why we don't have REINDEX CONCURRENTLY now.
Same reason for everything on (anyone's) TODO list.
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:55:35 AM Josh Berkus wrote:
On 9/24/12 3:43 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 24 September 2012 17:36, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
For me, the Postgres user interface should include
* REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
I don't see why we don't have REINDEX
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:55:35 AM Josh Berkus wrote:
On 9/24/12 3:43 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 24 September 2012 17:36, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
For me, the Postgres user interface should
2012/09/23 12:37, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I think it's time to consider some *umbrella project* for maintaining
several small projects outside the core.
Well, that was pgfoundry, and it didn't work out.
I'm not sure that is quite
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Satoshi Nagayasu sn...@uptime.jp wrote:
2012/09/23 12:37, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I think it's time to consider some *umbrella project* for maintaining
several small projects outside the core.
Hi,
I'm sakamoto, maintainer of reorg.
What could be also great is to move the project directly into github to
facilitate its maintenance and development.
No argument from me there, especially as I have my own fork in github,
but that's up to the current maintainers.
Yup, I am thinking
(2012/09/22 11:01), sakamoto wrote:
(2012/09/22 10:02), Christopher Browne wrote:
If the present project is having a tough time doing enhancements, I
should think it mighty questionable to try to draw it into core, that
presses it towards a group of already very busy developers.
On the
2012/9/22 Satoshi Nagayasu sn...@uptime.jp:
(2012/09/22 11:01), sakamoto wrote:
(2012/09/22 10:02), Christopher Browne wrote:
If the present project is having a tough time doing enhancements, I
should think it mighty questionable to try to draw it into core, that
presses it towards a group
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 9:45 AM, M.Sakamoto
sakamoto_masahiko...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
Hi,
I'm sakamoto, maintainer of reorg.
What could be also great is to move the project directly into github to
facilitate its maintenance and development.
No argument from me there, especially as I have my
On Sat, 2012-09-22 at 16:25 +0900, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
I think it's time to consider some *umbrella project* for maintaining
several small projects outside the core.
Well, that was pgfoundry, and it didn't work out.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Sat, 2012-09-22 at 16:25 +0900, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
I think it's time to consider some *umbrella project* for maintaining
several small projects outside the core.
Well, that was pgfoundry, and it didn't work out.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I think it's time to consider some *umbrella project* for maintaining
several small projects outside the core.
Well, that was pgfoundry, and it didn't work out.
I'm not sure that is quite analogous to what was being proposed.
I read it as
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com wrote:
If the argument for moving pg_reorg into core is faster and easier
development, well I don't really buy that.
I don't see any problem in having pg_reorg in PGXN instead.
I've tried adding a META.json to the project
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Daniele Varrazzo
daniele.varra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com
wrote:
If the argument for moving pg_reorg into core is faster and easier
development, well I don't really buy that.
I don't see any
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm not familiar with pg_reorg, but I wonder why we need a separate
program for this task. I know pg_reorg is ok as an external program
per se, but if we could optimize CLUSTER (or VACUUM which I'm a little
(2012/09/21 22:32), Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Daniele Varrazzo
daniele.varra...@gmail.com mailto:daniele.varra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Josh Kupershmidt
schmi...@gmail.com mailto:schmi...@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 9:08 AM, sakamoto dsakam...@lolloo.net wrote:
(2012/09/21 22:32), Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Daniele Varrazzo
daniele.varra...@gmail.com
mailto:daniele.varrazzo@**gmail.comdaniele.varra...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at
If the present project is having a tough time doing enhancements, I should
think it mighty questionable to try to draw it into core, that presses it
towards a group of already very busy developers.
On the other hand, if the present development efforts can be made more
public, by having them take
(2012/09/22 10:02), Christopher Browne wrote:
If the present project is having a tough time doing enhancements, I
should think it mighty questionable to try to draw it into core, that
presses it towards a group of already very busy developers.
On the other hand, if the present development
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
During the last PGCon, I heard that some community members would be
interested in having pg_reorg directly in core.
I'm actually not crazy about this idea, at least not given the current
state of
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
During the last PGCon, I heard that some community members would be
interested in having pg_reorg directly in core.
I'm
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
During the last PGCon, I heard that some community members would be
interested in having pg_reorg directly in core.
Just to recall, pg_reorg is a functionality developped by NTT that allows to
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
What could be also great is to move the project
38 matches
Mail list logo
