On 2010-11-12 16:51, David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:25:51AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah, that's another interesting question: should we somehow force
unreferenced CTEs to be evaluated anyhow?
Yes.
After a night's sleep I'm still thinking no. Arguments:
1) the name Common
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 15:02, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
I have developed the attached patch to report whether IPv4 or IPv6 are
being used.
What's the use of that exactly? It doesn't really respond to Peter's
concern, I
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 02:28:35PM +0100, Yeb Havinga wrote:
On 2010-11-12 16:51, David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:25:51AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah, that's another interesting question: should we somehow force
unreferenced CTEs to be evaluated anyhow?
Yes.
After a night's
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Right. I propose that we set max_wal_senders to unlimited when
wal_level = hot_standby.
It's a memory allocation parameter ... you can't just set it to
unlimited, at least not without
On 2010-11-13 14:41, David Fetter wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 02:28:35PM +0100, Yeb Havinga wrote:
1) the name Common Table Expression suggests that t must be
regarded as an expression, hence syntactically / proof theoretic and
not as a table, set of rows / model theoretic. I.e. it is not a
On 13 Nov 2010, at 15:41, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 02:28:35PM +0100, Yeb Havinga wrote:
On 2010-11-12 16:51, David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:25:51AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah, that's another interesting question: should we somehow force
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
One idea I've had is that we might want to think about defining an
operation that is effectively store, with a memory barrier. For
example, on x86, this could be implemented using xchg. I think if you
have a single-word variable in shared memory that
Marko Tiikkaja marko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi writes:
On 13 Nov 2010, at 15:41, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Similarly, if a normal CTE called a data-changing function but was
nevertheless not referred to, it would still run.
Actually, it wouldn't.
Indeed, and that was considered a
On 2010-11-13 5:08 PM +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
Marko Tiikkajamarko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi writes:
On 13 Nov 2010, at 15:41, David Fetterda...@fetter.org wrote:
Similarly, if a normal CTE called a data-changing function but was
nevertheless not referred to, it would still run.
Actually, it
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 17:23 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
So these queries would behave differently?
WITH t AS (DELETE FROM foo RETURNING *)
SELECT 1 WHERE false;
WITH t AS (DELETE FROM foo RETURNING *)
SELECT 1 FROM t LIMIT 0;
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this
new mechanism.
On 2010-11-13 5:36 PM +0200, Clark C. Evans wrote:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 17:23 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
So these queries would behave differently?
WITH t AS (DELETE FROM foo RETURNING *)
SELECT 1 WHERE false;
WITH t AS (DELETE FROM foo RETURNING *)
SELECT 1 FROM t LIMIT 0;
I'm still
If a table has no indexes, we will always decide that any same-page
update operation is a HOT update, since obviously it isn't modifying
any indexed columns. But is there any benefit to doing so? I don't
see one offhand, and it has a downside: we're very likely to
encounter broken HOT chains if
On 11/12/2010 11:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net writes:
On 11/12/2010 03:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Improved parallel make support
Looks like this patch has pretty comprehensively broken the MSVC build
system. I'll see what I can recover from the wreckage.
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
I'm curious to know how much all this buys us.
It *would* be nice if make -k worked better. I frequently run into
the fact that (with the pre-existing setup) a compile error in the
backend prevented make from proceeding with builds of interfaces/,
BTW, there's another problem here: make -j2 on my Mac blows up with
this on stderr:
ld: file not found: ../../../../../../src/backend/postgres
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
make[3]: *** [ascii_and_mic.so] Error 1
make[2]: *** [all-ascii_and_mic-recursive] Error 2
make[1]: ***
On 11/13/2010 11:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
It looks like all the unhappy critters are getting the same virtual
memory exhausted error. I wonder whether they are all using make 3.80
...
Maybe we need to put back make version logging. Interestingly, narwhal,
the mingw machine that has reported,
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
It looks like all the unhappy critters are getting the same virtual
memory exhausted error. I wonder whether they are all using make 3.80
Both my Sparc and Intel Solaris critters have 3.80.
--
Dave Page
Blog:
On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 10:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
If a table has no indexes, we will always decide that any same-page
update operation is a HOT update, since obviously it isn't modifying
any indexed columns. But is there any benefit to doing so?
If we do the in-page mini vacuum even without
Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 10:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
If a table has no indexes, we will always decide that any same-page
update operation is a HOT update, since obviously it isn't modifying
any indexed columns. But is there any benefit to doing so?
On lör, 2010-11-13 at 11:06 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
But I don't feel we need to squeeze every last pip out of
the build system.
Probably not on the buildfarm, but when you are developing, saving 20
seconds or 2 minutes per cycle can lead to hours saved.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
On lör, 2010-11-13 at 11:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
It looks like all the unhappy critters are getting the same virtual
memory exhausted error. I wonder whether they are all using make
3.80 ...
It turns out that there is an unrelated bug in 3.80 that some Linux
distributions have patched
On lör, 2010-11-13 at 11:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Consulting stdout shows that indeed it's launched this series of jobs:
make -C backend/utils/mb/conversion_procs all
make -C ascii_and_mic all
gcc -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith
-Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On lör, 2010-11-13 at 11:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
It looks like all the unhappy critters are getting the same virtual
memory exhausted error. I wonder whether they are all using make
3.80 ...
It turns out that there is an unrelated bug in 3.80 that
On fre, 2010-11-12 at 17:19 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
If we allow users to name objects, we ought to make every effort to
also allow renaming them. In my mind, the only way renaming is too
marginal to be useful is if the feature itself is too marginal to be
useful.
The bottom line is, any
On Sat, November 13, 2010 18:15, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On lör, 2010-11-13 at 11:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
It looks like all the unhappy critters are getting the same virtual
memory exhausted error. I wonder whether they are all using make
3.80 ...
It turns out that there is an unrelated
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org writes:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner reported a problem in postmaster via IM to me. I
thought I had nailed down the bug, but after more careful reading of the
code, turns out I was wrong.
The reported problem is that postmaster shuts itself down with this
On lör, 2010-11-13 at 12:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On lör, 2010-11-13 at 11:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
It looks like all the unhappy critters are getting the same virtual
memory exhausted error. I wonder whether they are all using make
3.80 ...
On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 12:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 10:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
If a table has no indexes, we will always decide that any same-page
update operation is a HOT update, since obviously it isn't modifying
any
Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 12:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
AFAICS we do: heap_update marks the page as prunable whether it's a HOT
update or not. The only difference between treating the update as HOT vs
not-HOT is that if there was more than one HOT
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 05:23:34PM +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
On 2010-11-13 5:08 PM +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
Marko Tiikkajamarko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi writes:
On 13 Nov 2010, at 15:41, David Fetterda...@fetter.org wrote:
Similarly, if a normal CTE called a data-changing function but
was
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 03:23:42PM +0100, Yeb Havinga wrote:
On 2010-11-13 14:41, David Fetter wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 02:28:35PM +0100, Yeb Havinga wrote:
1) the name Common Table Expression suggests that t must be
regarded as an expression, hence syntactically / proof theoretic and
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
It's not that straighforward though, in that the producer could stop a
bit ahead of what the consumer reads, due to there being a buffer in the
middle. Witness this simple example
Yeah, another example where the analogy fails for us.
--
On lör, 2010-11-13 at 20:07 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On lör, 2010-11-13 at 12:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On lör, 2010-11-13 at 11:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
It looks like all the unhappy critters are getting the same virtual
memory exhausted
Circumstances have conspired to leave me with very little time to
work on the SSI patch during the last few weeks. I'm still convinced
that the work mentioned in this post is necessary to have a
commit-quality patch:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg01754.php
I also
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
Well, it looks like $(eval) is pretty broken in 3.80, so either we
require 3.81 or we abandon this line of thought.
[ emerges from some grubbing about in the gmake sources... ]
It looks to me like the bug in 3.80 is only triggered when eval
expands to a
On 11/13/2010 06:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herreraalvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org writes:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner reported a problem in postmaster via IM to me. I
thought I had nailed down the bug, but after more careful reading of the
code, turns out I was wrong.
The reported problem is that
Stefan Kaltenbrunner ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc writes:
On 11/13/2010 06:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Just looking at it, I think that the logic in canAcceptConnections got
broken by somebody in 8.4, and then broken some more in 9.0: in some
cases it will return an okay to proceed status without having
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
One idea I've had is that we might want to think about defining an
operation that is effectively store, with a memory barrier. For
example, on x86, this could be implemented using
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
FYI, I always wondered if the rare use of mergejoins justified the extra
planning time of carrying around all those joinpaths.
They're hardly rare.
They fairly rare in the sorts of
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 10:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
If a table has no indexes, we will always decide that any same-page
update operation is a HOT update, since obviously it isn't
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On fre, 2010-11-12 at 17:19 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
If we allow users to name objects, we ought to make every effort to
also allow renaming them. In my mind, the only way renaming is too
marginal to be useful is if
On 11/13/2010 11:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunnerste...@kaltenbrunner.cc writes:
On 11/13/2010 06:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Just looking at it, I think that the logic in canAcceptConnections got
broken by somebody in 8.4, and then broken some more in 9.0: in some
cases it will return
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
2. The second one (unlogged-tables-v1) adds support for unlogged
tables by adding a new supported value for relpersistence. I made this
work by having backend that creates an unlogged relation write out an
init fork for that relation. The main fork is
The goal of this work is to address all of the shortcomings of previous POSIX
shared memory patches as pointed out mostly by Tom Lane.
Branch:
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=users/agentm/postgresql.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/posix_shmem
Main file:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
2. The second one (unlogged-tables-v1) adds support for unlogged
tables by adding a new supported value for relpersistence. I made this
work by having backend that creates an unlogged
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Here is a series of three patches related to unlogged tables.
1. The first one (relpersistence-v1) is a mostly mechanical patch that
replaces pg_class.relistemp (a Boolean) with pg_class.relpersistence
(a character), so that we can support more than
A.M. age...@themactionfaction.com writes:
The goal of this work is to address all of the shortcomings of previous POSIX
shared memory patches as pointed out mostly by Tom Lane.
It seems like you've failed to understand the main shortcoming of this
whole idea, which is the loss of ability to
On 11/13/2010 07:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I would also argue that temp-ness is a distinct
concept from logged-ness.
I agree.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
That seems pretty gross. If you're going to have to take a special
action at startup anyway, why wouldn't it take the form of truncate,
then if it's an index, call the appropriate
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 15:02, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
I have developed the attached patch to report whether IPv4 or IPv6 are
being used.
What's the use of that exactly? ?It doesn't really
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Here is a series of three patches related to unlogged tables.
1. The first one (relpersistence-v1) is a mostly mechanical patch that
replaces pg_class.relistemp (a Boolean) with
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
That seems pretty gross. If you're going to have to take a special
action at startup anyway, why wouldn't it take
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Cleanup at first connection is something we've been avoiding for years,
but maybe it's time to bite the bullet and do that?
Another alternative is to initialize the unlogged tables when you
first access them. If you try to
2010/11/12 KaiGai Kohei kai...@kaigai.gr.jp:
The attached patch allows the security label provider to switch
security label of the client during execution of certain functions.
I named it as label switcher function; also called as trusted-
procedure in SELinux community.
This feature is
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Cleanup at first connection is something we've been avoiding for years,
but maybe it's time to bite the bullet and do that?
Another alternative is to
David Fetter wrote:
For the past couple of years, I've been hearing from the PostGIS
people among others that our type system just isn't flexible enough
for their needs. It's really starting to show its age, or possibly
design compromises that seemed reasonable a decade or more ago, but
are
(2010/11/14 11:19), Robert Haas wrote:
2010/11/12 KaiGai Koheikai...@kaigai.gr.jp:
The attached patch allows the security label provider to switch
security label of the client during execution of certain functions.
I named it as label switcher function; also called as trusted-
procedure in
57 matches
Mail list logo
