Hi,
I have tested with makeing this change and it is showing useful
readings. The point of introducing the indexes with snapshot is that it
should reduce the number of logical I/Os.(It may be from memory / from hard
disk). Logical I/Os are potential Physical I/Os.
On 10/20/07, Martijn van
Tom Lane wrote:
I'm also not totally clear on whether we are happy with the Windows
locale situation yet. Comments from the Win32 contingent?
I'm happy that UTF-8 support is now working again, but not happy that
initdb and pg_control will report (for example) English_United
Kingdom.1252
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:59:07AM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
I'm also not totally clear on whether we are happy with the Windows
locale situation yet. Comments from the Win32 contingent?
I'm happy that UTF-8 support is now working again, but not happy that
initdb and
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
ISTM that perhaps a more generally useful definition would be
lwordOnly ASCII letters
nlword Entirely letters per iswalpha(), but not lword
word Entirely alphanumeric per iswalnum(), but not nlword
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
ISTM that perhaps a more generally useful definition would be
lword Only ASCII letters
nlword Entirely letters per iswalpha(), but not lword
word Entirely alphanumeric per iswalnum(), but not nlword
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday, October 21, 2007 22:38:04 -0400 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I've posted notes over the past few days about half a dozen relatively-
minor-but-none-the-less-initdb-forcing issues in tsearch. We
This change in pgbench.c:
revision 1.71
date: 2007-08-25 10:21:14 +0100; author: ishii; state: Exp; lines: +7 -2;
The upper limit for -c option of pgbench is now obtained from
(FD_SETSIZE - 10) rather than a hardwired number.
Turns out to be, perhaps, ill-advised on Windows where
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
ISTM that perhaps a more generally useful definition would be
lword Only ASCII letters
nlword Entirely letters per iswalpha(), but not lword
wordEntirely
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 11:11:47AM +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
This change in pgbench.c:
revision 1.71
date: 2007-08-25 10:21:14 +0100; author: ishii; state: Exp; lines: +7 -2;
The upper limit for -c option of pgbench is now obtained from
(FD_SETSIZE - 10) rather than a
Oleg Bartunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ts_debug is a really debug function and could be changed. Btw, it doesn't
supports thesaurus dictionaries, so it should be rewritten in C.
I would think things like ts_debug (and ts_stat?) which are handy support
modules but not fundamentally part of the
2007/10/22, Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Oleg Bartunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ts_debug is a really debug function and could be changed. Btw, it doesn't
supports thesaurus dictionaries, so it should be rewritten in C.
I would think things like ts_debug (and ts_stat?) which are handy
Hi all,
I'm working for a brazillian company developing and maintaining a ERP sw
that uses PostgreSQL as it main OLTP database system. We're just to start
the migration to IBM DB2 because of many performance issues.
I searched the solution for these performance problems, and can't find
anything
2) The constraint doesn't exist on the master, only the slave, so I don't
beleive EXECUTE SCRIPT will work, no?
No, it does not work. I've tried.
// John
_
John Parnefjord
Samordnare UBIT Utveckling / Coordinator UBIT Development
Tiago J. Adami wrote:
The issue topics:
1) As the database grows on our customers, lower performance occurs. After
one week of use, the I/O on database is extremely high. It appears that
VACUUM FULL and/or VACUUM ANALYZE doesn't work on this databases.
That sounds like a classic case of
On 10/21/07, Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
We have had very few beta1 issues. I am thinking we should release
beta2 next week and perhaps accelerate beta and consider a final release
in November rather than December. Because of the length of our feature
Tiago J. Adami [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The issue topics:
1) As the database grows on our customers, lower performance occurs. After
one week of use, the I/O on database is extremely high. It appears that
VACUUM FULL and/or VACUUM ANALYZE doesn't work on this databases.
VACUUM FULL is a
Tiago J. Adami schreef:
Hi all, I'm working for a brazillian company developing and
maintaining a ERP sw that uses PostgreSQL as it main OLTP database
system. We're just to start the migration to IBM DB2 because of many
performance issues. I searched the solution for these performance
On Sunday 21 October 2007 22:38, Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Nothing motivates people to test more than moving toward RC1. ;-)
Getting Beta2 out is vital to actually getting people to test there are
known issues and changes with Beta1
Hello,
I've installed on a windows xp machine beta 1 of postgresql 8.3 and pgadmin III
1.8.
I've loaded a backup of a database from a 8.2.5 machine, for testing purpose,
and tried
the new functionality of plpgsql debug of functions.
But I was disappointed to see that does not work.
I try to
Roberto Icardi wrote:
Hello,
I've installed on a windows xp machine beta 1 of postgresql 8.3 and
pgadmin III 1.8.
I've loaded a backup of a database from a 8.2.5 machine, for testing
purpose, and tried
the new functionality of plpgsql debug of functions.
But I was disappointed to see
Gregory Stark a écrit :
Tiago J. Adami [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The issue topics:
1) As the database grows on our customers, lower performance occurs. After
one week of use, the I/O on database is extremely high. It appears that
VACUUM FULL and/or VACUUM ANALYZE doesn't work on this
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 09:25:03AM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
On Sunday 21 October 2007 22:38, Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Nothing motivates people to test more than moving toward RC1. ;-)
Getting Beta2 out is vital to actually
Dave,
the problem isn't with a particular function. Debug does not work with every
function I try, even with the simplest one, always with the same behaviour I've
previously explained.
I repeat, my postgresql server is an 8.3 beta 1 installed on the same machine
where pgadmin III 1.8 is
The program below works with PostgreSQL 8.0.3, but not 8.1.10. The
error I receive is:
Runtime Error!
Program: C:\testSQL.exe
This application has requested the Runtime to terminate it in an unusual
way.
Please contact the application's support team for more information.
This
Roberto Icardi wrote:
Dave,
the problem isn't with a particular function. Debug does not work with
every function I try, even with the simplest one, always with the same
behaviour I've previously explained.
I repeat, my postgresql server is an 8.3 beta 1 installed on the same
machine
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:59:07AM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
From chatting with Magnus, I believe he'd support losing the .1252 or
leaving it as is, where I'd rather rewrite it to .65001 (which he does
not support).
I'm not against stripping the .1252
Yes, they are all there
I've also tried on a newly created database instead of testing on a restored
from 8.2. backup but with
the same behaviour :-(
- Original Message -
From: Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Roberto Icardi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Le lundi 22 octobre 2007, Robert Treat a écrit :
There was talk that the txid contrib module could be folded into core
should we do an initdb post beta; has that idea been revisted now that we
have?
It very well seem to have been integrated into core:
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:59:07AM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
From chatting with Magnus, I believe he'd support losing the .1252 or
leaving it as is, where I'd rather rewrite it to .65001 (which he does
not support).
I'm not against
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
lwordEntirely letters per iswalpha, with at least one ASCII
nlword Entirely letters per iswalpha
word Entirely alphanumeric per iswalnum, but not nlword
I don't like this categorization
Roberto Icardi wrote:
Yes, they are all there
I've also tried on a newly created database instead of testing on a
restored from 8.2. backup but with
the same behaviour :-(
Please post the definition of an affected function, along with the
output from the following queries:
select * from
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 03:18:38PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:59:07AM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
From chatting with Magnus, I believe he'd support losing the .1252 or
leaving it as is, where I'd rather rewrite
I've requested this before without response, but I'm asking again
because it just caused me pain again: could we get a TODO added to
have the planner recognize equivalent IN and EXISTS constructs and
have them compete on cost estimates? I know it's not a trivial
improvement, but if it's on the
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I like the aword name more than lword, BTW. If we change the meaning
of the classes, surely we can change the name as well, right?
I'm not very familiar with the use case here. Is there a good reason to want
Please post the definition of an affected function, along with the
output from the following queries:
select * from pldbg_get_proxy_info();
select * from pldbg_get_target_info('16480', 'o');
(where 16480 is replaced with the oid of the affected function).
Thanks, Dave
CREATE OR REPLACE
On 10/21/07, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tried generating idle connections in an effort to reproduce
Laurent's problem, but I ran into a local limit instead: for each
backend, postmaster creates a thread and burns 4MB of its 2GB address
space. It fails around 490.
Oh,
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As I chatted with Dave about - wnat encoding? We pull that value cluster
wide, but the encoding is per-database. You could have one UTF8 and one
WIN1252 database...
Will chklocale.c actually allow that? Should it? We've spent a lot of
time zeroed in
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Those who have been with the community from long ago might remember
discussion about implementing a undo log. The big advantage of this is
that it allows UPDATE to _replace_ rows and limits the amount of cleanup
required
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:55:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As I chatted with Dave about - wnat encoding? We pull that value cluster
wide, but the encoding is per-database. You could have one UTF8 and one
WIN1252 database...
Will chklocale.c
Roberto Icardi wrote:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION public.prova(provain character varying)
RETURNS character varying AS
$BODY$
begin
if (provain = 'A') then
return 'INVALIDO';
else
return 'VALIDO';
end if;
end;
$BODY$
LANGUAGE 'plpgsql' VOLATILE
COST 100;
ALTER FUNCTION
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:07:06 +0100
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oleg Bartunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ts_debug is a really debug function and could be changed. Btw, it
doesn't supports thesaurus dictionaries, so it should be rewritten
in C.
I would think things like
- Original Message -
From: Roberto Icardi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pgadmin debug on windows
When you attempt to debug it, do you see the parameter dialogue before
it crashes, or does it go
Hello,
I have a problem. Because some changes I made in the implementation of the
creation of indexes at the time that I try to insert an index is the
following error:
bogus pg_index tuple
What can be happening?
Thank,
--
Pedro Belmino.
Pedro Belmino wrote:
I have a problem. Because some changes I made in the implementation of the
creation of indexes at the time that I try to insert an index is the
following error:
bogus pg_index tuple
What can be happening?
Obviously you broke something with the changes. That error message
Hello,
Yes, I've searched though the archives and can't seem to find the answer I'm
looking for.
I would like to modify the PostgreSQL Setup Wizard to only display certain
options. Only provide the user with one option as oppose to a number. i.e.
Driver: ODBC.
Which directory are
Bruce,
We never actually considred undo, but high UPDATE activity was one of
the areas we historically handled poorly compared to undo systems, and
undo would have been one way to improve that area. I think with HOT we
have improved high UPDATE activity enough that the undo benefits are no
Kath,
Which directory are the files located in, after having successfully
installed PostgreSQL on my PC. How can I access the source code of these
files? Is it possible to extract the files from postgresql-8.2.exe
windows installer package?
You need to join the mailing list of the
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 09:31 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I've requested this before without response, but I'm asking again
because it just caused me pain again: could we get a TODO added to
have the planner recognize equivalent IN and EXISTS constructs and
have them compete on cost estimates?
For planning purposes, I think its always a good idea to lay down some
dates for the next lot of development milestones. These can be
provisional, until declared solid later.
So: When is the next Feature Freeze?
Is it March 31? If not, when?
I know the answer is too early to tell for certain,
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Magnus Hagander:
Oh, that's interesting. That's actually a sideeffect of us increasing
the stack size for the postgres.exe executable in order to work on other
things. By default, it burns 1MB/thread, but ours will do 4MB. Never
really thought of the problem that
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:43:28 +0100
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For planning purposes, I think its always a good idea to lay down some
dates for the next lot of development milestones. These can be
provisional, until declared solid later.
We can't not realistically consider this until
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 11:27:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's legitimate use for creating a role with NOLOGIN and a password.
If we think that, then we shouldn't have a message at all.
At least if we think it's more
* Magnus Hagander:
Oh, that's interesting. That's actually a sideeffect of us increasing
the stack size for the postgres.exe executable in order to work on other
things. By default, it burns 1MB/thread, but ours will do 4MB. Never
really thought of the problem that it'll run out of address
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 02:02:14PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote:
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 08:29 -0500, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
This is a great starting point. I would appreciate it if you have the
time and could make it apply cleanly to HEAD.
Just to give you an update on this, I'll try to find
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 11:53 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:43:28 +0100
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For planning purposes, I think its always a good idea to lay down some
dates for the next lot of development milestones. These can be
provisional, until
Trevor Talbot wrote:
On 10/21/07, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tried generating idle connections in an effort to reproduce
Laurent's problem, but I ran into a local limit instead: for each
backend, postmaster creates a thread and burns 4MB of its 2GB address
space. It fails
Roberto Icardi wrote:
When you attempt to debug it, do you see the parameter dialogue before
it crashes, or does it go immediately?
if I try debug-debug it goes immediately
if I try debug-set breakpoint I can see debugger window but is
completely empty and inactive
Also, please set
Simon,
We can issue a provisional date. We could also say at least 6 months
after release date of 8.3. I'm sure there's other options too.
I'm going to suggest 4 months after 8.3. 8.3 was supposed to be a *short*
release so that we could move our calendar around. HOT and some of the
other
Josh Berkus wrote:
In fact, I could see doing a no-catalog-changes, no major patches we don't
already know about, 6-month release. It would reset our cycle and get
PL/proxy, DSM, clustered indexes, etc. out the door. It could mean
turning away patches which look attractive, though, so
Josh Berkus wrote:
So my thought is, shoot for a short release so that we can get away from
summer consolidations and December releases, and extend the cycle if
someone dumps another 50,000 lines of attractive patches on us.
Before we settle on any dates I think we should have some
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:47:41 -0300
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
In fact, I could see doing a no-catalog-changes, no major patches
we don't already know about, 6-month release. It would reset our
cycle and get PL/proxy, DSM, clustered indexes, etc. out the
On 10/22/07, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Trevor Talbot wrote:
I'd probably take the approach of combining win32_waitpid() and
threads. You'd end up with 1 thread per 64 backends; when something
interesting happens the thread could push the info onto a queue, which
the new
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was planning to make it even easier and let Windows do the job for us,
just using RegisterWaitForSingleObject(). Does the same - one thread per
64 backends, but we don't have to deal with the queueing ourselves.
Should be rather trivial to do.
How
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, you mean like we planned for 8.0 and failed, then for 8.1 and
failed, then for 8.2 and failed, then for 8.3 and failed? I can
definitely support that idea.
As I recall 8.0 and 8.1 actually went pretty
On 10/22/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was planning to make it even easier and let Windows do the job for us,
just using RegisterWaitForSingleObject(). Does the same - one thread per
64 backends, but we don't have to deal with the queueing
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was planning to make it even easier and let Windows do the job for us,
just using RegisterWaitForSingleObject(). Does the same - one thread per
64 backends, but we don't have to deal with the queueing ourselves.
Should be rather
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At least if we think it's more than a very narrow legitimate use, compared
to the number of ppl making the mistake.
Did we ever come to a conclusion on this or not? I've changed my patch
per the
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In point of fact, the big patches that aren't in 8.3 were rejected
because they weren't ready. They won't get into 8.4, either, unless
someone does a lot more work on them. So I don't follow this idea
of how we have a pre-loaded queue of good stuff all
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 2007-10-19 kell 15:42, kirjutas Joe Conway:
Decibel! wrote:
On Oct 18, 2007, at 11:17 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
Seriously though, I can change it for 8.3, but is it really worth
back-patching?
I think it'd be worth changing for 8.3. While C forces you to worry
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 1:30 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 09:31 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I've requested this before without response, but I'm asking again
because it just caused me pain again: could we get a TODO added to
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We're not talking about the backends, we're talking about the backend
waiter threads whose sole purpose is to wait for a backend to die and
then raise a signal when it does.
Oh, OK, I had not twigged to exactly what the threads were being used
for.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 4:37 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Kevin Grittner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One more logically equivalent, PostgreSQL-specific form which
costs out even better was suggested off-list:
Oops. That is not logically equivalent. We want to delete WHERE NOT
EXISTS;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh Berkus) writes:
Simon,
We can issue a provisional date. We could also say at least 6 months
after release date of 8.3. I'm sure there's other options too.
I'm going to suggest 4 months after 8.3. 8.3 was supposed to be a *short*
release so that we could move our
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Before we settle on any dates I think we should have some discussion
about how we can shorten the period between feature freeze and beta,
which was far too long this time. Perhaps we need to be more aggressive
about what what makes the cut and what
Chris Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh Berkus) writes:
In fact, I could see doing a no-catalog-changes, no major patches we don't
already know about, 6-month release. It would reset our cycle and get
PL/proxy, DSM, clustered indexes, etc. out the door. It could
Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce,
We never actually considred undo, but high UPDATE activity was one of
the areas we historically handled poorly compared to undo systems, and
undo would have been one way to improve that area. I think with HOT we
have improved high UPDATE activity enough that
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce,
We never actually considred undo, but high UPDATE activity was one of
the areas we historically handled poorly compared to undo systems, and
undo would have been one way to improve that area. I think with HOT we
have improved high
77 matches
Mail list logo
