On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 01:35:42PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
AFAICS you do not need to inline create_statement. The risk factor
is where you call a routine that does something with a va_list, and
then you want to do something else (other than va_end) with that va_list
after it returns. The one
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:29:47AM -0700, Mark Wong wrote:
I applied it to REL8_2_STABLE/pgsql and ran 'run_build.pl --test
--keepall REL8_2_STABLE'. Looks like it passed everything for me. :)
Thanks for this test. I just committed the changes to CVS.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael
Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been seeing this failure intermittently on Narwhal HEAD, and once
on 8.1. Other branches have been OK, as have other animals running on
the same physical box. Narwhal-HEAD is run more often than any other
builds however.
Oh, this is
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 18:51 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 11:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 11:15 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
It strikes me that allowing archive_command to be changed on the fly
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 21:14 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
That should go away entirely; to me the main point of the separate
wal-writer process is to take over responsibility for not letting too
many dirty wal buffers accumulate.
Yes
I'll make the agreed
Hi,
When the lock manager's data structures were split into partitions,
how many such data structures can one partition control? Since we use
LOCKTAG's hash value to decide the partition which the lock should in, can
all locks be split into ONE partition?
Regards,
ranc.
This email applies ONLY to the native Windows port of PostgreSQL, not to
any other ports.
Version 8.0 was the first version of PostgreSQL that ran on Windows
natively. As most of you know, the porting work was a large and complex
task that spanned two development cycles and took a great deal of
rancpine cui wrote:
When the lock manager's data structures were split into partitions,
how many such data structures can one partition control?
The number of partitions is 16 (NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS). The total size of
the lock hash table is max_locks_per_xact * (max_connections +
shieldy wrote:
Hi, I wanto joinin the developer group of postgresql。
But, I just donot know how to put the first step, as I installed the
postgresql, and also get the postgresql code. after that, I also
installed the cygwin on my computer( as my os is windows xp). but now
I wonder what's my
On 4/25/07, Gustavo Tonini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/24/07, Marko Kreen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/23/07, Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, you're talking about distributing partitions across different nodes
and parallelizing queries. No, we don't do that today.
Hi,
I have dropped a column (say column name is 'A') from the relation R. By
setting the attisdropped as true in the pg_catalog.pg_attribute table. But
the column is dropped locially not the physically. Can you please tell me
when this column will be physically also dropped. Is this column is
Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As regards the zero_damaged_pages question, I raised that some time ago
but we didn't arrive at an explicit answer. All I would say is we can't
allow invalid pages in the buffer manager at any time, whatever options
we have requested,
rupesh bajaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
I have dropped a column (say column name is 'A') from the relation R. By
setting the attisdropped as true in the pg_catalog.pg_attribute table. But
the column is dropped locially not the physically. Can you please tell me
when this column will be
Dave Page wrote:
* The stats collector bug which prevented stats being collected
reliably, thus causing all the expected knock on effects (including
near-total failure of autovacuum). The 8.2 fix for this was dependent
on the redesign of the collector to remove the separate stats buffering
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 12:56:27PM +0200, Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
shieldy wrote:
Hi, I wanto joinin the developer group of postgresql。
But, I just donot know how to put the first step, as I installed the
postgresql, and also get the postgresql code. after that, I also
installed the
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Dave Page wrote:
* The stats collector bug which prevented stats being collected
reliably, thus causing all the expected knock on effects (including
near-total failure of autovacuum). The 8.2 fix for this was dependent
on the redesign of the collector to remove the
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 12:56:27PM +0200, Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
shieldy wrote:
Hi, I wanto joinin the developer group of postgresql。
But, I just donot know how to put the first step, as I installed the
postgresql, and also get the postgresql code. after
Now that we seem to have MSVC building working tolerably well, I think
we need a bit of cleanup. In particular, I think the config setup needs
to be more like the arguments we pass to the standard configure script.
This shouldn't be hard, but I think it should be done before we go to
beta,
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
What we could have is the semantics of Return a buffer, with either
correct contents or completely zeroed out. It would act just like
ReadBuffer if the buffer was already in memory, and zero out the page
otherwise. That's a bit strange semantics to have, but is
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
What we could have is the semantics of Return a buffer, with either
correct contents or completely zeroed out. It would act just like
ReadBuffer if the buffer was already in memory, and zero out the page
otherwise. That's a bit strange
-- Forwarded message --
From: rancpine cui [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007-4-27 下午9:22
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] How does the partitioned lock manager works?
To: Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks for your reply. :-)
I've seen from the README that
The shared-memory hash tables
rancpine cui escribió:
I've seen from the README that
The shared-memory hash tables for LOCKs and PROCLOCKs are organized
so that different partitions use different hash chains, and thus there
is no conflict in working with objects in different partitions.
What does hash chains mean?
Each
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) writes:
I have seen no one do peroformance testing of this, so it seems it
will have to wait for 8.4.
I didn't have time...
I'll see if I can find a decent place to document how to tweak the
threshold, as that seems like it could be worth doing in cases where
Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Is this the same physical machine as narwhal?
Yes, it is. It's an FC6 box running VMWare server, with a Win 2k3r2 VM
and a Vista ultimate VM, both with mingw and msvc animals.
I'm still not convinced it's a hardware problem - aside from
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
What we could have is the semantics of Return a buffer, with either
correct contents or completely zeroed out. It would act just like
ReadBuffer if the buffer was already in memory, and zero out the page
In summary, for a patch to be applied, someone has to understand the
patch and the subsystem it modifies. In the past, most complex patches
came from experienced developers, so even if no one but the author fully
understood the patch, we could rely on the author to some extent. With
new people
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think these two justify declaring the Windows port at EOL prior to
8.2. The others probably not so much. (Who cares if pg_regress is not a
C program? Who besides developers uses it?)
The reason to care about it is that the lack of it guarantees the
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 18:51 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 11:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 11:15 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
It strikes me that allowing archive_command
I assume this is 8.4 material.
---
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As regards the zero_damaged_pages question, I raised that some time ago
but we didn't arrive at an
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
rancpine cui escribió:
What does hash chains mean?
Each hash chain is a different, separate, independent hash struct.
It's pretty much equivalent to hash bucket --- this comment says chain
because it's focusing on the physical representation of the
Chris Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) writes:
I have seen no one do peroformance testing of this, so it seems it
will have to wait for 8.4.
I didn't have time...
(e.g. - we've got a case where dropping the threshold to ~900 bytes
would give us a big win
Tom Lane wrote:
I concur it's too regular to be a hardware issue. The VMware idea is
a bit plausible though. If that's it, we ought to see failures of this
ilk on all four animals sooner or later ...
I've run full disk scans in both Windows VMs, and forced an fsck of the
host just to be on
I've uploaded a preview release of the Windows installer for PostgreSQL
8.3 to http://pgfoundry.org/frs/?group_id=107.
This preview is intended to get some initial testing and feedback on the
new architecture that we intend to use for future installers. In a
nutshell, most of the bundled
I wrote:
The easiest answer I can think of at the moment is to run parse analysis
for a DECLARE CURSOR and then throw away the result. To avoid this
overhead in cases where it's useless, we could probably teach analyze.c
to do it only if p_variableparams is true (which essentially would mean
So, please download and test if you are able and provide feedback
through the pgFoundry bug tracker - we want to iron out any problems as
soon as possible before release. Please note however:
- pl/java will not work yet - please do not try to activate it in template1.
- Slony and PostGIS are
On Apr 27, 2007, at 12:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would like to suggest that we make psql default when in
interactive mode to
using AUTOCOMMIT=false and ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK=true.
That is *way* too big a behavioral change to make depend on
something as
On Apr 27, 2007, at 4:58 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
I am not sure that shrinking per WAL record size (other than the full
page images), e.g. by only logging changed bytes and not whole
tuples,
would have a huge impact on OLTP tx/sec, since
On Apr 27, 2007, at 12:35 PM, Gregory Stark wrote:
I have dropped a column (say column name is 'A') from the relation
R. By
setting the attisdropped as true in the pg_catalog.pg_attribute
table. But
the column is dropped locially not the physically. Can you please
tell me
when this column
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 10:37 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I assume this is 8.4 material.
I think its a small enough, performance-only change to allow it at this
time. It will provide considerable additional benefit for Warm Standby
servers.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) writes:
Chris Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) writes:
I have seen no one do peroformance testing of this, so it seems it
will have to wait for 8.4.
I didn't have time...
(e.g. - we've got a case where dropping the threshold to
2007/4/27, Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Which hash is used depends on the partition number.
So the method of calculating the bucket number can promise
that all items in the bucket link list belong to ONE partition?
rancpine cui [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So the method of calculating the bucket number can promise
that all items in the bucket link list belong to ONE partition?
It's not that hard: the bucket number is some number of low-order bits
of the hash value, and the partition number is some smaller
42 matches
Mail list logo
