On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 10/01/2010 04:35 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
2). In enum_ccmp(), when you cache the full list of elements, you're
not updating mycache-sort_list_length, so it will keep fetching the
full list each time. Also, I think
2010/8/24 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
I tried to revise the patch. It allows plugins to get control next to
client authentication, but before returning the status to users.
This change enables plugins which should be invoked on authentication
failed to utilize this hook, not only
2010/10/12 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
I noticed the previous patch has an obvious conflict to the latest
git mater, and it does not have any documentation updates.
So, I rebased the patch, and added descriptions about secure views.
Rest of parts are unchanged.
It seems that we have
On 13.10.2010 08:21, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
It shouldn't be too hard to fix. Walsender needs to be able to read WAL from
preceding timelines, like recovery does, and walreceiver needs to write the
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 13.10.2010 08:21, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
It shouldn't be too hard to fix. Walsender needs to be able to
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 3:05 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Adding a Synch Standby
---
What is the procedure for adding a new synchronous standby in your
implementation? That is, how do we go from having a standby server with
an empty PGDATA to having a working
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
I agree with Josh's proposal: keep mechanically-generated settings in a
separate file, and don't even pretend to allow comments to be kept there.
And then, when you SET PERMANENT knob TO value (or whatever the syntax
is), you never know what value is selected
On 10/13/2010 06:43 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
Unfortunately even enough standbys don't increase write-availability
unless you choose wait-forever. Because, after promoting one of
standbys to new master, you must keep all the transactions waiting
until at least one standby has connected to and
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 13.10.2010 08:21, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
It shouldn't be too hard to fix. Walsender needs to be able to
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
There's another problem here we should think about, too. Suppose you
have a master and two standbys. The master dies. You promote one of
the standbys, which turns out to be behind the other. You then
repoint the
Hello
I am looking on SQL standard for some info about within group
clause. This clause is necessary for functions:
rank, dense_rank, cume_dist, percent_rank and percentile_disc and
persentile_cont. These functions needs a clause WITHIN GROUP.
If I understand, then these functions are not
On mån, 2010-10-11 at 20:46 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
The problem is in interface. The original patch did it, but I removed
it. We cannot to unsure immutability of some parameters now.
How about you store the immutable parameter in the transition state
and error out if it changes between
2010/10/13 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
On mån, 2010-10-11 at 20:46 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
The problem is in interface. The original patch did it, but I removed
it. We cannot to unsure immutability of some parameters now.
How about you store the immutable parameter in the transition
2010/10/13 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
2010/10/13 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
On mån, 2010-10-11 at 20:46 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
The problem is in interface. The original patch did it, but I removed
it. We cannot to unsure immutability of some parameters now.
How about
Hi,
I'm looking for a way to reliably detect if it's a promoting
standby. This is neccessary for pgpool-II manage streaming replication
clusters. When primary goes down, standby *could* start promoting to
primary. The only way to find it is calling
pg_is_in_recovery(). Problem is, it returns true
hi peter,
I would like to hear what people think of my observations about the
design of contrib/isn. In particular, I'd like Jan Otto to contribute
- he probably has more domain knowledge than I do. I haven't heard
from Jan about the proposed regression test.
In producing this patch, did
hi tom,
Peter Eisentraut asked Jan to produce a regression test for the ISN
contrib module, which he is apparently working on. I would like to see
him more clearly explaining how that will work though - so far, it's
really just been described in very broad strokes.
Even more to the point,
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
I agree with Josh's proposal: keep mechanically-generated settings in a
separate file, and don't even pretend to allow comments to be kept there.
And then, when you SET
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I spent some time hacking on this. It doesn't appear to be too easy
to get levenshtein_less_equal() working without slowing down plain old
levenshtein() by about 6%.
Is that really enough slowdown to be worth contorting the code to avoid?
I've never
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
With the possible exception of Tom,
everyone seems to agree that it would be a good step forward to
provide a way of plugging these holes, even if it didn't cover subtler
information leaks such as by reading the EXPLAIN output or timing
query
On mån, 2010-10-11 at 18:44 -0700, Greg Stark wrote:
So we've been over this. All the pieces you need are already there:
you can handle this without any nasty comment grunging by just writing
the new setting to a postgresql.auto and including that from
postgresql.conf. Include a note in
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié oct 13 10:32:36 -0300 2010:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I spent some time hacking on this. It doesn't appear to be too easy
to get levenshtein_less_equal() working without slowing down plain old
levenshtein() by about 6%.
Is that
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
You're not alone on this at all: I agree 100%. I don't like your
proposed syntax, but I completely agree with your concern. I don't
see what's wrong with having the initial contents of postgresql.conf
look like this (these are the settings that are
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 08:57:09PM +0200, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Hi,
Please find attached a WIP patch for extension's pg_dump support in
PostgreSQL, following design decisions that we've outlined earlier at
this year's and last year's PGCon developer meetings.
What's in the patch?
An
(2010/10/13 22:43), Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com writes:
With the possible exception of Tom,
everyone seems to agree that it would be a good step forward to
provide a way of plugging these holes, even if it didn't cover subtler
information leaks such as by reading the
Excerpts from David Fetter's message of mié oct 13 11:27:56 -0300 2010:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 08:57:09PM +0200, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
- Extension Upgrading
Should this be done by means of 'create extension' or some other
command, like 'alter extension foo upgrade'? The
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié oct 13 10:32:36 -0300 2010:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I spent some time hacking on this. It doesn't appear to be too easy
to get levenshtein_less_equal() working without slowing down
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 11:05 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Simon, Fujii,
What follows are what I see as the major issues with making two-server
synch replication work well. I would like to have you each answer them,
explaining how your patch and your design addresses each issue. I
believe this
On 10/13/2010 10:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com writes:
You're not alone on this at all: I agree 100%. I don't like your
proposed syntax, but I completely agree with your concern. I don't
see what's wrong with having the initial contents of postgresql.conf
look
On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 11:07 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Absolutely. For a synch standby, you can't tolerate any standby delay
at all. This means that anywhere from 1/4 to 3/4 of queries on the
standby would be cancelled on any high-traffic OLTP server. Hence,
useless.
Don't agree with your
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Also, if upgrading is necessary, there will need to be one upgrade
control file that says how to upgrade from version N to N+1.
I don't think we should really support the downgrade case. It has the
potential to get too messy -- and for what
On 13 October 2010 13:45, Jan Otto as...@me.com wrote:
we can only prove self-consistency, because there is no algorithm behind
the scene. the ranges gets applied to publishers depending on how much
books they publishing over time and probably other criteria.
What about the issue I raised
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié oct 13 10:32:36 -0300 2010:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I spent some time hacking on this. It doesn't appear to be too
KaiGai Kohei kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
Previous security researcher pointed out security is trading-off,
not all-or-nothing. If we can plug most part of the threat with
reasonable performance degrading, it is worthwhile to fix up.
I had the pleasure of hearing Admiral Grace Hopper[1] speak
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
+1. Preserving the comments when you change the value could make the
comments totally bogus. Separating machine-generated values into a
separate file makes plenty of sense to me.
Which one wins, though? I can see cases being made for both.
IIRC
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
But the main point is that 6% performance penalty in a non-core function
is well below my threshold of pain.
Well, then you have to wonder whether it's worth having the
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
I had the pleasure of hearing Admiral Grace Hopper[1] speak at an
ACM luncheon once. When she discussed security, she asserted that
there was no such thing as security which could not be breached.
The goal of security efforts should not be
On Oct 13, 2010, at 10:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
+1. Preserving the comments when you change the value could make the
comments totally bogus. Separating machine-generated values into a
separate file makes plenty of sense to me.
Which one wins,
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
I'm not sure if anybody is particularly against the initial contents
looking like that. The big problem, which both you and Dimitri are
conveniently ignoring, is that if people are allowed to hand-edit
the file they are going to introduce comments that no
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:36:02AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from David Fetter's message of mié oct 13 11:27:56 -0300 2010:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 08:57:09PM +0200, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
- Extension Upgrading
Should this be done by means of 'create extension' or
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
With the possible exception of Tom,
everyone seems to agree that it would be a good step forward to
provide a way of plugging these holes, even if it didn't cover subtler
information
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
I had the pleasure of hearing Admiral Grace Hopper[1] speak at an
ACM luncheon once. When she discussed security, she asserted that
there was no such thing as security which
On Wednesday 13 October 2010 16:18:01 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié oct 13 10:32:36 -0300 2010:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I spent some time hacking on this. It doesn't appear to be too easy
to get levenshtein_less_equal() working without
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
You're not alone on this at all: I agree 100%. I don't like your
proposed syntax, but I completely agree with your concern. I don't
see what's wrong with having the initial contents
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
But the main point is that 6% performance penalty in a non-core function
is well below my threshold of pain.
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
That's all true, but you have to consider how much the obstacle actually
gets in their way versus how painful it is on your end to create and
maintain the obstacle. I don't think
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
But creating a separate file doesn't fix that problem. It just moves
it around. If people will expect comments in postgresql.conf to get
preserved, then why won't they also expect comments in
postgresql.conf.auto to get preserved?
Because
No doubt, but the actual function runtime is only one component of the
cost of applying it to a lot of dictionary entries --- I would think
that the table read costs are the larger component anyway.
Data domain can be not only dictionary but also something like article
titles, urls and so on.
In this case search of near strings can be accelerated in more than 10
times.
I mean that component of function runtime can be accelerated in more than 10
times. Of course, actual overall speedup depends on many other factors, but
I belive that it also can be significant.
With best
This, what I see in your patch, is sending additional statement to server.
This adds some unnecessery (especially TCP/IP) latency. gura
I sent such patch fully in Java
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-jdbc/2009-11/msg00010.php),
implementing cancellation with Timer and cancel query
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
You seem to believe that being able to infer the total size of a
table or the frequency of some particular key in the table is
equivalent to being able to trivially read every row of it.
I don't say that they're equivalent. I do say that what this
IIRC the proposal was that postgresql.conf (the people-editable file)
would have include postgresql.auto in it. You could put that at
the top, bottom, or even middle to control how the priority works.
So it's user-configurable. I think the factory default ought to
be to have it at the top,
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Another awkwardness of this patch is that it makes
create_append_path() and consequently set_dummy_rel_pathlist() take an
additional root argument. While there's nothing terribly
unreasonable about this on its face, it's only necessary so that
Rados*aw Smogurarsmog...@softperience.eu wrote:
I updated patch to latets CVS version, I didn't have time to
remove some trashes from it.
If something will be wrong with patch, give a feedback.
I skimmed it and agree that it is the right general approach --
using java.util.Timer to
We have a database specification in .pgpass:
hostname:port:database:username:password
What is the purpose of 'database' since username/password combinations
are global, not per database? I would like to documents its purpose.
--
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us
Since MaxBackends is actually max_connections + autovacuum_max_workers +
1, when you get an error message from shmget() it will tell you
reduce ... its max_connections parameter (currently 104)
when you actually set
max_connections = 100
This looks a bit silly.
Should we just make the error
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
the OMG Postgres exposes my information crowd is not going to
distinguish leaks that only expose MCVs from those that trivially
allow sucking out the entire table.
Well, I'd be in the crowd that would go OMG over one but not the
other. At least in our
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:56:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
But creating a separate file doesn't fix that problem. It just moves
it around. If people will expect comments in postgresql.conf to get
preserved, then why won't they also expect comments
This surprised me:
psql -p 5 -h localhost
psql: could not connect to server: Connection refused
Is the server running on host localhost and accepting
TCP/IP connections on port 5?
could not connect to server: Connection refused
Is the server running on host
Hi all!
./configure --prefix=$HOME/inst/pg-9 --enable-nls --enable-debug
--enable-depend --enable-cassert --enable-thread-safety --with-pgport=5431
--with-libxml --with-libxslt --with-python --with-perl --with-tcl
FLEX=/usr/local/bin/flex
--8---cut
On tis, 2010-10-12 at 17:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Oh, I had an idea for a small improvement to this. It doesn't seem
unlikely that pg_hba.conf could contain multiple entries with the same
host name (but, presumably, different user and/or database names). As
this is coded, you'll do a
61 matches
Mail list logo
