I was reading through ref/set_transaction.sgml and noticed that the
only documentation of DEFERRABLE is that it's a PostgreSQL language
extension, not anything about what it actually does. Same for begin
and start_transaction. I see it described in README-SSI and for the
guc
Hello,
I just wanted to inform you that Cornelia and me start the
project to translate and publish the documentation German.
Means the project will have a really high women concentration
at the beginning :)
pgsql-www suggested to take postgresql.de for publishing. I thought
it is a great idea
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 18:19, Robert Treat r...@xzilla.net wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 04:00, Robert Treat r...@xzilla.net wrote:
I have a server where I wanted to do some reporting on a standby, and
wanted to set the
On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 16:13 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Almost-working patch attached for the above feature. Time to stop for
the day. Patch against current repo version.
Current repo version attached here also (v20),
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Yes, that can happen. As people will no doubt observe, this seems to be
an argument for wait-forever. What we actually need is a wait that lasts
longer than it takes for us to decide to failover, if the standby is
On Saturday 05 March 2011 04:44:20 Robert Haas wrote:
* Collation-related regression failure on buildfarm member pika. This
is clearly a bug we need to identify, but maybe we can ship the alpha
without a fix --- for one thing, getting more than one report of the
problem would be helpful.
On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 11:04 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
+ /*
+ * Assume the queue is ordered by LSN
+ */
+ if (XLByteLT(walsndctl-lsn, proc-waitLSN))
+ return numprocs;
The code to ensure the assumption needs to be
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
It is documented that the selection of standby from a set of similar
priorities is indeterminate. Users don't like it, they can change it.
That doesn't seem like a good argument to *change* the synchronous
standby once
On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 07:24 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
It is documented that the selection of standby from a set of similar
priorities is indeterminate. Users don't like it, they can change it.
That doesn't seem like a
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 07:24 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
It is documented that the selection of standby from a set of similar
priorities is
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
So it seems like the only thing that is an absolute must-do is write
some release notes.
Here's a rough attempt at filtering the post-alpha3
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
If the order is arbitrary, why does it matter if it changes?
The user has the power to specify a sequence, yet they have not done so.
They are
Magnus Hagander wrote:
I was reading through ref/set_transaction.sgml and noticed that the
only documentation of DEFERRABLE is that it's a PostgreSQL language
extension, not anything about what it actually does. Same for begin
and start_transaction. I see it described in README-SSI and for
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Alexander Korotkov korot...@intaro.ru wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a rough attempt at filtering the post-alpha3 commit log down to
approximately the set of things worth adding to the alpha4 release
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
So it seems like the only thing that is an absolute must-do is write
some
On 03/04/2011 10:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
So it seems like the only thing that is an absolute must-do is write
some release notes.
Here's a rough attempt at filtering the post-alpha3 commit log down to
approximately
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
I can imagine that someplace down the road we might want to allow
multiple extensions to own the same SQL object; I know that RPMs can
share ownership of files, for comparison. But today is not that day.
[…]
Anyone have a different answer?
What could be
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Andy Colson a...@squeakycode.net wrote:
Support unlogged tables. The contents of an unlogged table are
WAL-logged;
um.. are _not_ WAL-logged?
Uh, yeah. It looks like I fixed that in the version I committed, but
introduced another, similar mistake which I have
On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 14:44 +0100, Yeb Havinga wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Simon Riggs
si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
If the order is arbitrary, why does it matter if it changes?
On 03/05/2011 08:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Andy Colsona...@squeakycode.net wrote:
Support unlogged tables. The contents of an unlogged table are
WAL-logged;
um.. are _not_ WAL-logged?
Uh, yeah. It looks like I fixed that in the version I committed, but
On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 20:08 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Yes, that can happen. As people will no doubt observe, this seems to be
an argument for wait-forever. What we actually need is a wait that lasts
longer than it
On 03/05/2011 08:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Andy Colsona...@squeakycode.net wrote:
Support unlogged tables. The contents of an unlogged table are
WAL-logged;
um.. are _not_ WAL-logged?
Uh, yeah. It looks like I fixed that in the version I committed, but
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I've added code to shmqueue.c to allow this.
New version pushed.
New comments;
It looks odd to report the sync_state of walsender in BACKUP
state as ASYNC.
+SyncRepCleanupAtProcExit(int code, Datum arg)
+{
+ if
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I'm not in favour.
If the user has a preferred order, they can specify it. If there is no
preferred order, how will we maintain that order?
What are the rules for maintaining this arbitrary order?
Probably what
On lör, 2011-03-05 at 09:33 -0600, Andy Colson wrote:
Can we add a line saying -j still doesnt work, dont use it yet or
make -j2 works great now. I admit I've never tried to use -j
before... is this telling me its ok to use now?
Has make -j ever made any sense? Other than for locking up your
On Mar 5, 2011, at 11:17 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I'm not in favour.
If the user has a preferred order, they can specify it. If there is no
preferred order, how will we maintain that order?
What
El 05/03/2011 11:18, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com escribió:
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
I'm not in favour.
If the user has a preferred order, they can specify it. If there is no
preferred order, how will we maintain that order?
What
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On Saturday 05 March 2011 04:44:20 Robert Haas wrote:
* Collation-related regression failure on buildfarm member pika. This
is clearly a bug we need to identify, but maybe we can ship the alpha
without a fix --- for one thing, getting more than one
On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 01:17 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I'm not in favour.
If the user has a preferred order, they can specify it. If there is no
preferred order, how will we maintain that order?
What are the
On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 11:42 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
El 05/03/2011 11:18, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com escribió:
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
I'm not in favour.
If the user has a preferred order, they can specify it. If there
is
On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 00:42 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I've added code to shmqueue.c to allow this.
New version pushed.
New comments;
None of the requested changes are in v21, as yet.
It looks odd to report the
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
New comments;
Another one;
+ longtimeout = SyncRepGetWaitTimeout();
snip
+ else if (timeout 0
+ TimestampDifferenceExceeds(wait_start, now,
On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 11:46:13AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On Saturday 05 March 2011 04:44:20 Robert Haas wrote:
* Collation-related regression failure on buildfarm member pika. This
is clearly a bug we need to identify, but maybe we can ship the
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
The only easy fix I can see at the moment is to arbitrarily create two
pg_proc entries --- they can both point at the same C function, but
there need to be two of 'em.
So for 9.1, I think you took the
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On a positive note this is one less parameter and will improve
performance as well.
All above changes made.
Ready to commit, barring concrete objections to important behaviour.
I will do one final check tomorrow
On 03/05/2011 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Dimitri Fontainedimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
The only easy fix I can see at the moment is to arbitrarily create two
pg_proc entries --- they can both point at the same C function, but
there need to be two of 'em.
On Saturday 05 March 2011 17:46:13 Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On Saturday 05 March 2011 04:44:20 Robert Haas wrote:
* Collation-related regression failure on buildfarm member pika. This
is clearly a bug we need to identify, but maybe we can ship the alpha
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
FYI, I'm working on the MSVC issues.
Ah, great. I was just about to start hacking something together, but
it'd be better for somebody to do it who can test it before committing...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
On Saturday 05 March 2011 18:37:30 Andres Freund wrote:
On Saturday 05 March 2011 17:46:13 Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
I am currently looking at the other one. Its quite strange:
The backtrace during the operations described earlier:
0 index_getprocinfo
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
I have a WIP patch fixing one of the two issues.
Several places in selfuncs.c didn't setup collations. That lead for example
to
errors during patternsel.
Hmm. I have to say that this seems like quite the wrong way to go.
If everyplace in the system
On Saturday 05 March 2011 18:43:31 Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
I have a WIP patch fixing one of the two issues.
Several places in selfuncs.c didn't setup collations. That lead for
example to errors during patternsel.
Hmm. I have to say that this seems
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Even though postmaster dies, the waiting backend keeps waiting until
the timeout expires. Instead, the backends should periodically check
whether postmaster is alive, and then they should exit immediately
if it's not
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Andy Colson a...@squeakycode.net wrote:
On 03/05/2011 08:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Andy Colsona...@squeakycode.net wrote:
Support unlogged tables. The contents of an unlogged table are
WAL-logged;
um.. are _not_ WAL-logged?
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Hmm. Personally I do use createdb/dropdb but never createlang/droplang;
but I'm well aware that my usage may not be typical. I'm a bit hesitant
to just go and drop these without any
On Mar 5, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
On reflection I think it makes no sense at all to leave those tools
issuing CREATE/DROP LANGUAGE. We want to move people over to managing
languages via extensions, and leaving those tools unchanged will not
serve that goal. However, I don't mind
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
There are two things that I think are pretty clear. If the receiver
has wal_receiver_status_interval=0, then we should ignore
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Andy Colson a...@squeakycode.net wrote:
On 03/05/2011 08:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Andy Colsona...@squeakycode.net wrote:
Support unlogged tables. The contents of an unlogged table are
WAL-logged;
um.. are _not_ WAL-logged?
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
The next question is how come this regression test ever worked on that
platform. The reason is that up till my changes for $SUBJECT, when you
issued CREATE LANGUAGE plpython2u in a database that already had
plpythonu installed, CREATE LANGUAGE found C
On 05.03.2011 11:57, Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
For me this means - it is finally time to translate / update old Peter
docs. Peter and me think - just translate all again is faster then taking
and checking his old texts.
I'm curious, what percentage of the text has changed since 7.3? I did this:
On 2011-03-05 18:25, Yeb Havinga wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com
mailto:si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On a positive note this is one less parameter and will improve
performance as well.
All above changes made.
Ready to commit, barring
On 2011-03-05 21:11, Yeb Havinga wrote:
Summary of preliminary testing:
1) it is confusing to show messages/ contents of stat_replication that
hints at syncrep, when synchronous_replication is on.
s/on/off/
Also forgot to mention these tests are againt the latest v21 syncrep patch.
Y
On lör, 2011-03-05 at 12:43 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Why aren't we just setting finfo.fn_collation to DEFAULT_COLLATION_OID
by default, or maybe better letting places that inspect it take zero
as meaning default collation?
Because then you'd just get silently wrong results instead of an error.
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Yeb Havinga yebhavi...@gmail.com wrote:
Summary of preliminary testing:
1) it is confusing to show messages/ contents of stat_replication that hints
at syncrep, when synchronous_replication is on.
[for the record, Yeb explain he means OFF not on...]
the thing
On Mar 4, 2011, at 7:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
So it seems like the only thing that is an absolute must-do is write
some release notes.
What about this?
Yeah, the real problem in my mind is not so much citext as whether the
current representation of a type's collation property is sane in
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
On Mar 4, 2011, at 7:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
So it seems like the only thing that is an absolute must-do is write
some release notes.
What about this?
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/27152(dot)1299015062(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
Ah. Finally after trying to stare down the code for some more time the issue
is pretty simple.
index_getprocinfo did this:
/* Initialize the lookup info if first time through */
if (locinfo-fn_oid == InvalidOid)
{
...
fmgr_info_cxt(procId, locinfo,
I am seeing the following compile problem with gmake -j2:
/bin/sh ../../../config/install-sh -c -d '/usr/local/pgsql/lib'
/bin/sh ../../../../config/install-sh -c -m 644 ./plpgsql.control
'/usr/local/pgsql/share/extension'
/bin/sh ../../../config/install-sh -c -m 644
I got a report from someone using pg_upgrade coming from PG 8.3 ---
turns out we didn't rename toast tables to match the new relfilenode in
pre-8.4, so the attached applied patch avoids the check for these cases.
This check is new in pg_upgrade for 9.1.
--
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us
Robert,
Some minor fixes:
197listitem
198 para
199 emphasisImplement a truly serializable isolation
level/emphasis
200 /para
201/listitem
Should be:
emphasisImplement Serializable Snapshot Isolation, in order to provide
a more robust
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
On Mar 4, 2011, at 7:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
So it seems like the only thing that is an absolute must-do is write
some release notes.
What about this?
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Even though postmaster dies, the waiting backend keeps waiting until
the timeout expires. Instead, the backends should periodically check
whether
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 20:08 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Yes, that can happen. As people will no doubt observe, this seems to be
an argument for
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
One comment; what about introducing built-in function to wake up all the
waiting backends? When replication connection is closed, if we STONITH
the standby, we can safely (for not physical data loss but logical one)
63 matches
Mail list logo
