Hi Michael,
(2011/09/21 12:52), Michael Paquier wrote:
I am interested in the development you are doing regarding join push down
and fdw stuff for remote postgreSQL servers.
Is there a way to get the postgres fdw you are providing here for common
9.1?
I saw that the tar you are providing
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 04:50, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
3. Copy the pg_control file from the cluster directory on the standby to
the backup as follows:
cp $PGDATA/global/pg_control
On 21.09.2011 02:53, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
C stdlib quick-sort time elapsed: 2.092451 seconds
Inline quick-sort time elapsed: 1.587651 seconds
Does *that* look attractive to you?
Not really, to be honest. That's a 25% speedup in pure qsorting speed.
How much of a gain in a real query do you
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
This performance patch differs from most in that it's difficult in
principle to imagine a performance regression occurring.
Really? N copies of the same code could lead to performance loss just
due to code bloat (ie, less
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 21.09.2011 02:53, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
C stdlib quick-sort time elapsed: 2.092451 seconds
Inline quick-sort time elapsed: 1.587651 seconds
Does *that* look attractive to you?
Not really, to
On 21.09.2011 10:01, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 21.09.2011 02:53, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
C stdlib quick-sort time elapsed: 2.092451 seconds
Inline quick-sort time elapsed: 1.587651 seconds
Does *that*
2011/9/21 Shigeru Hanada shigeru.han...@gmail.com
Hi Michael,
(2011/09/21 12:52), Michael Paquier wrote:
I am interested in the development you are doing regarding join push down
and fdw stuff for remote postgreSQL servers.
Is there a way to get the postgres fdw you are providing here
On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 18:32 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
No, but more similar the format are the easier it gets to at least factor
the hairy parts of such a parser into a common subroutine. Assume that we
don't support NULL as an alias for INF. What would then be the result of
On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 12:26 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
What I really
care about is that we don't talk ourselves into needing a zillion
constructor functions. Making things work with a single constructor
function seems to me to simplify life quite a bit, and allowing there
seems essential for
On 21 September 2011 01:48, karave...@mail.bg wrote:
All -O2 version show 42% speedup with inlined qsort.
-O0 showed 25% speedup.
Thanks. Looks like the figures I posted last night were fairly
conservative. Does anyone else care to report results?
--
Peter Geoghegan
Hello all,
I'm writing a C-language function that is similar to nextval() but
should return the next member of the recurrent sequence:
T(n+1) = f(T(n), T(n-1), ..., T(n-k)), where f is some function and k is
a constant.
The state of this object should be persistent between database restarts
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 08:23, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 04:50, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
3. Copy the pg_control file from the cluster directory on the standby to
2011/9/19 Matthew Wilcox matt...@wil.cx:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 08:31:00AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Benjamin LaHaise (b...@kvack.org) wrote:
For such tables, can't Postgres track the size of the file internally? I'm
assuming it's keeping file descriptors open on the tables it manages,
This attempts to be as simple as it gets while reducing function call
depth, and should be viewed as a proof of concept. It is also untested
as of now, but will try to do that and report back.
I'm hoping I followed the rabbit hole correctly and are correctly
comparing the right pointers to each
Recent discussions on the threads Double sorting split patch and
CUDA sorting raised the possibility that there could be significant
performance optimisation low-hanging fruit picked by having the
executor treat integers and floats as a special case during sorting,
avoiding going to the
On Sep21, 2011, at 09:23 , Jeff Davis wrote:
On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 18:32 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
No, but more similar the format are the easier it gets to at least factor
the hairy parts of such a parser into a common subroutine. Assume that we
don't support NULL as an alias for INF. What
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 12:26 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
What I really
care about is that we don't talk ourselves into needing a zillion
constructor functions. Making things work with a single constructor
function seems to me
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Vlad Arkhipov arhi...@dc.baikal.ru wrote:
I'm writing a C-language function that is similar to nextval() but should
return the next member of the recurrent sequence:
T(n+1) = f(T(n), T(n-1), ..., T(n-k)), where f is some function and k is a
constant.
The state
On Sep21, 2011, at 14:00 , Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 12:26 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
(I am also vaguely wondering what happens if if you have a text
range is (nubile, null) ambiguous?)
There are a few
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
Boy, that seems really weird to me. If you're going to do it, it
ought to be case-insensitive, but I think detecting the case only for
the purpose of rejecting it is probably a mistake. I mean, if
(nubile, nutty) is OK, then
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
How about almost every primary index creation?
Nope. Swamped by everything else.
Really? I think it's pretty common for shops to be able to dedicate
large amounts of RAM to building initial indexes
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
How about almost every primary index creation?
Nope. Swamped by everything else.
Really? I think it's pretty common for shops to be
On 21 September 2011 07:51, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 21.09.2011 02:53, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
C stdlib quick-sort time elapsed: 2.092451 seconds
Inline quick-sort time elapsed: 1.587651 seconds
Does *that* look attractive to you?
Not really, to be
On 21.09.2011 17:20, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Even still, I
think that the 12.5% figure is pretty pessimistic - I've already sped
up the dell store query by almost that much, and that's with a patch
that was, due to circumstances, cobbled together.
I'm not against making things faster, it's just
Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org writes:
On Sep21, 2011, at 14:00 , Robert Haas wrote:
Otherwise, anyone
who wants to construct these strings programatically is going to need
to escape everything and always write (cat,dog) or however you do
that, and that seems like an unnecessary imposition.
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
On 21.09.2011 17:20, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Even still, I
think that the 12.5% figure is pretty pessimistic - I've already sped
up the dell store query by almost that much, and that's with a patch
that was, due to circumstances,
Hello,
* Context *
I'm observing problems with provisioning a standby from the master by
following a basic and documented Making a Base Backup [1] procedure with
rsync if, in the mean time, heavy load is applied on the master.
After searching the archives, the only more discussed and similar
On 09/21/2011 10:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
The other question that I'm going to be asking is whether it's not
possible to get most of the same improvement with a much smaller code
footprint. I continue to suspect that getting rid of the SQL function
impedance-match layer (myFunctionCall2Coll
Hi,
I find the current behaviour of locking of sequences rather problematic.
Multiple things:
- First and foremost I find it highly dangerous that ALTER SEQUENCE ... is
for the biggest part not transactional. I think about the only transaction
part is the name, owner and schema.
Sure, its
On Sep21, 2011, at 16:41 , Tom Lane wrote:
Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org writes:
On Sep21, 2011, at 14:00 , Robert Haas wrote:
Otherwise, anyone
who wants to construct these strings programatically is going to need
to escape everything and always write (cat,dog) or however you do
that, and
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
This is a marvellous win, a huge gain from a small, isolated and
easily tested change. By far the smallest amount of additional code to
sorting we will have added and yet one of the best gains.
I think you forgot your cheerleader uniform. A patch
Hello Alvaro,
On 16.09.2011 15:08, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
It's certainly possible to create a private mailing list to support this
idea. How would the membership be approved, however, is not clear to
me. Would we let only well-known names from other pgsql lists into it?
(I, for one, had no
On 21 September 2011 15:50, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
I'm not against making things faster, it's just that I haven't seen
solid evidence yet that this will help. Just provide a best-case test
case for this that shows a
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 09/21/2011 10:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
The other question that I'm going to be asking is whether it's not
possible to get most of the same improvement with a much smaller code
footprint. I continue to suspect that getting rid of the SQL function
On 21.09.2011 18:46, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net writes:
On 09/21/2011 10:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
The other question that I'm going to be asking is whether it's not
possible to get most of the same improvement with a much smaller code
footprint. I continue to suspect
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
As such, they could not have entries in pg_proc, so
it seems like there's no ready way to represent them in the catalogs.
Why couldn't they be in pg_proc with a bunch of opaque arguments like
the GIST opclass support
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
On 21.09.2011 18:46, Tom Lane wrote:
The idea that I was toying with was to allow the regular SQL-callable
comparison function to somehow return a function pointer to the
alternate comparison function,
You could have a new
On 21.09.2011 18:46, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, we'd have to negotiate what the API ought to be. What I'm
envisioning is that datatypes could provide alternate comparison
functions that are designed to be qsort-callable rather than
SQL-callable. As such, they could not have entries in pg_proc, so
Hi all,
Whats the reason for disallowing cursors on wCTEs? I am not sure I can follow
the comment:
/*
* We also disallow data-modifying WITH in a cursor. (This could be
* allowed, but the semantics of when the updates occur might be
* surprising.)
*/
Greg Stark st...@mit.edu writes:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
As such, they could not have entries in pg_proc, so
it seems like there's no ready way to represent them in the catalogs.
Why couldn't they be in pg_proc with a bunch of opaque arguments like
On 21-09-2011 11:44, Linas Virbalas wrote:
[This question doesn't belong to -hackers. Please post it in -general or -admin]
Procedure:
1. Start load generator on the master (WAL archiving enabled).
2. Prepare a Streaming Replication standby (accepting WAL files too):
2.1. pg_switch_xlog() on
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
On 21.09.2011 18:46, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, we'd have to negotiate what the API ought to be. What I'm
envisioning is that datatypes could provide alternate comparison
functions that are designed to be qsort-callable rather than
Hi guys!
I know Postgresql 9.x includes unaccent contrib on their deliver package.
unaccent is compatible with postgresql 8.4 (but not is in their contrib
version distribution)
what's better way to setup unaccent module on Postgresql 8.4 production
server.
Copy contrib/unaccent from 9.x to the
On Sep21, 2011, at 16:44 , Linas Virbalas wrote:
After searching the archives, the only more discussed and similar issue I
found hit was by Daniel Farina in a thread hot backups: am I doing it
wrong, or do we have a problem with pg_clog? [2], but, it seems, the issue
was discarded because of a
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
None of that stuff is inlinable or constant-foldable today, nor would it
be with the patch that Peter was proposing AFAICS, because none of the
flags will ever be compile time constant values.
I was referring to
Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of mié sep 21 00:27:53 -0300 2011:
On tis, 2011-09-20 at 11:12 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
+1 for a closed mailing list. It's a bit annoying to have to do
such a thing, but it's not like we haven't got other closed
lists for appropriate
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of mié sep 21 00:27:53 -0300 2011:
On tis, 2011-09-20 at 11:12 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
+1 for a closed mailing list. It's a bit annoying to have to do
such a
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
- Its impossible to emulate proper locking yourself because
locking is not allowed for sequences
Any arguments against allowing it again? It seems to have been
allowed in prehistoric times.
It would be nice to allow it. I've had to create a dummy
Fujii,
I haven't really been following your latest patches about taking backups
from the standby and cascading replication, but I wanted to see if it
fulfills another TODO: the ability to remaster (that is, designate the
lead standby as the new master) without needing to copy WAL files.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
- Its impossible to emulate proper locking yourself because
locking is not allowed for sequences
Any arguments against allowing it again? It seems to have been
allowed
Robert,
Josh is arguing that we ought to use the term replication, but it
Actually, no. I'm arguing that we should use the term standby, since
that term is consistent with how we refer to replica servers throughout
the docs, and the term recovery is not.
seems to me that's just as misleading
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Josh is arguing that we ought to use the term replication, but it
Actually, no. I'm arguing that we should use the term standby, since
that term is consistent with how we refer to replica servers throughout
the docs, and
On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 17:20 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
Hm, so we'd have
'(X,)' for range(X, NULL, '()'),
'(,X)' for range(NULL, X, '()') and
'(,)' for range(NULL, NULL, '()').
We'd then have the choice of either declaring
'(X,]' to mean '(X,)',
'[,X)' to mean '(,X)' and
On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 13:24 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
I've thought about this some more, and came to realize that the question
here really is whether
floatrange(0, 'Infinity'::float, '[)')
and
floatrange(0, NULL, '[)')
are the same thing or not.
The unbounded side of a range
Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
- Its impossible to emulate proper locking yourself because
locking is not allowed for sequences
Any arguments against
Yeah, I get it. But I think standby would confuse them, too, just in
a different set of situations.
Other than PITR, what situations?
PITR is used by a minority of our users. Binary replication, if not
already used by a majority, will be in the future (it's certainly the
majority of my
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Yeah, I get it. But I think standby would confuse them, too, just in
a different set of situations.
Other than PITR, what situations?
Hot backup?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise
On 9/21/11 10:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Yeah, I get it. But I think standby would confuse them, too, just in
a different set of situations.
Other than PITR, what situations?
Hot backup?
Hot backup == PITR. You're
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gunnlaugur_=DE=F3r_Briem?= gunnlau...@gmail.com writes:
On Monday, September 19, 2011 3:59:30 AM UTC, Tom Lane wrote:
Works for me in 8.4.8. Do you have constraint_exclusion set to ON?
I did try with constraint_exclusion set to on, though the docs suggest
partition should be
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 9/21/11 10:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Yeah, I get it. But I think standby would confuse them, too, just in
a different set of situations.
Other than
On Wednesday 21 Sep 2011 19:03:17 Kevin Grittner wrote:
Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
- Its impossible to emulate proper locking yourself because
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
eu...@timbira.com wrote:
[This question doesn't belong to -hackers. Please post it in -general or
-admin]
-hackers or -bugs seems appropriate to me; I think this is a bug.
2.2. pg_start_backup(Obackup_under_loadš) on the master (this
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
- Its impossible to emulate proper locking yourself because
locking is not allowed for sequences
Any arguments against allowing it again? It seems to have been
allowed in prehistoric times.
If you
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 9/21/11 10:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Yeah, I get it. But I think standby
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca wrote:
And I think Tom touched on this point in the
recovery.conf/recovery.done thread a bit too.
Doh! That's this thread
/me slinks away, ashamed for not even taking a close look at the to/cc list...
--
Aidan Van Dyk
On Wednesday 21 Sep 2011 19:24:55 Tom Lane wrote:
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
- Its impossible to emulate proper locking yourself because
locking is not allowed for sequences
Any arguments against allowing it again? It
On 21-09-2011 13:28, Daniel Vázquez wrote:
unaccent is compatible with postgresql 8.4 (but not is in their contrib
version distribution)
No, it is not. AFAICS it is necessary to add some backend code that is not in
8.4.
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira - Timbira
Hi,
I notice that HeapTupleSatisfiesToast is not setting the
HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED bit, though it is reading it. Is there a reason for
this? It seems to me that it'd make sense to have it set ... unless
it's set by some other routine, somehow?
--
Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org
--
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On Wednesday 21 Sep 2011 19:24:55 Tom Lane wrote:
One question is what you think the lock means. I believe for
example that taking a non-exclusive regular table lock on a
sequence would not prevent other sessions from doing nextval();
even an
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
- Its impossible to emulate proper locking
... ok
No alternatives for unaccent on 8.4?
2011/9/21 Euler Taveira de Oliveira eu...@timbira.com
On 21-09-2011 13:28, Daniel Vázquez wrote:
unaccent is compatible with postgresql 8.4 (but not is in their contrib
version distribution)
No, it is not. AFAICS it is necessary to add some
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
s/atomic/barrier/
Oops.
+/*
+ * A compiler barrier need not (and preferably should not) emit any
actual
+ * machine code, but must act as an optimization fence: the compiler must
not
+ *
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
But even a full explanation of that case seems like almost too
much for the comment of a header file, and there are certainly far
more complex cases. I think anyone who is using these primitives
is going to have to do some independent reading...
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org wrote:
Hi,
I notice that HeapTupleSatisfiesToast is not setting the
HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED bit, though it is reading it. Is there a reason for
this? It seems to me that it'd make sense to have it set ... unless
it's set
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
But even a full explanation of that case seems like almost too
much for the comment of a header file, and there are certainly far
more complex cases. I think anyone who
Excerpts from Merlin Moncure's message of mié sep 21 16:02:34 -0300 2011:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org
wrote:
Hi,
I notice that HeapTupleSatisfiesToast is not setting the
HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED bit, though it is reading it. Is there a reason
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
This is a marvellous win, a huge gain from a small, isolated and
easily tested change. By far the smallest amount of additional code to
sorting we will have added and yet one of the
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Merlin Moncure's message of mié sep 21 16:02:34 -0300 2011:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org
wrote:
Hi,
I notice that HeapTupleSatisfiesToast is not
On 05.09.2011 09:39, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
I attached wrong patch in previous message, sorry ! Here is a last version.
One little detail caught my eye: In spgSplitNodeAction, you call
SpGistGetBuffer() within a critical section. That should be avoided,
SpGistGetBuffer() can easily fail if you
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
But even a full explanation of that case seems like almost too
much for the comment of a header file, and there are certainly
On 21-09-2011 15:23, Daniel Vázquez wrote:
No alternatives for unaccent on 8.4?
Not that I know of.
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira - Timbira http://www.timbira.com.br/
PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org writes:
I notice that HeapTupleSatisfiesToast is not setting the
HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED bit, though it is reading it. Is there a reason for
this? It seems to me that it'd make sense to have it set ... unless
it's set by some other routine, somehow?
Hmm
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
More interesting, however, is the fact that the XMAX_COMMITTED bit is
never set either. I guess the rows are deleted by a different mechanism
(tuptoaster probably) -- it isn't obvious how this works just by looking
at tqual.c. It seems to do
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been thinking about this too and actually went so far as to do
some research and put together something that I hope covers most of
the
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been thinking about this too and actually went so far as to do
On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 18:28 +0200, Daniel Vázquez wrote:
Can Global Development Group, make some acumulative rpm for contrib
modules that are backward compatible???
No (as the RPM maintainer).
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL
Euler Taveira de Oliveira eu...@timbira.com writes:
On 21-09-2011 13:28, Daniel Vázquez wrote:
unaccent is compatible with postgresql 8.4 (but not is in their contrib
version distribution)
No, it is not. AFAICS it is necessary to add some backend code that is not in
8.4.
[ pokes at it ]
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
But even a full explanation of that case
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
there are three questions that you might want to answer here:
1. I have a new architecture and I want barrier.h to support it.
What do I need to do?
2. What is the behavior of the various constructs provided by
barrier.h?
3. Why would I
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I find it useless and probably confusing to put out Rows Removed
by Recheck Cond: 0 unless we're dealing with a lossy index.
I don't really see the point of this. I think printing it
I've processed the results of the tests with double sorting split which I've
sheduled for buffering build. I've updated wiki page with them:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Fast_GiST_index_build_GSoC_2011#Testing_results
Raw results of query speed measues are in the attachment. There number of
All,
I just tripped over this:
select 'josh'::varchar(32) = 'Josh'::citext;
?column?
--
f
While it's clear why it's that way, it's not how people would expect
citext to behave. Users expect case-insensitive text to be
case-insensitive for *all* comparisons, not just for comparisons
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
I'd like to patch the citext contrib module for 9.2 to fix this by
creating four new = operators to establish the comparison function for
text and varchar.
I think you'll find that's easier said than done (problem 1 is going to
be ambiguity, and problem 2
I think you'll find that's easier said than done (problem 1 is going to
be ambiguity,
Ambiguity?
and problem 2 is going to be that comparisons involving
these operators won't get indexed).
Yeah, that's acceptable, since it's not any worse than the behavior of
the comparisons now.
--
On Sep21, 2011, at 19:00 , Jeff Davis wrote:
While we're at it, any suggestions on the text representation of an
empty range?
My personal favourite would be '0', since it resembles the symbol used
for empty sets in mathematics, and we already decided to use mathematical
notation for ranges.
If
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@oss.ntt.co.jp wrote:
This is rebased patch of `Allow encoding specific character
incrementer'(https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=602).
Addition to the patch, increment sanity check program for new
On Sep21, 2011, at 19:02 , Jeff Davis wrote:
On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 13:24 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
I've thought about this some more, and came to realize that the question
here really is whether
floatrange(0, 'Infinity'::float, '[)')
and
floatrange(0, NULL, '[)')
are the same
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
I think you'll find that's easier said than done (problem 1 is going to
be ambiguity,
Ambiguity?
Yeah, I'm worried about the possibility of parser failing to resolve
which operator is meant.
and problem 2 is going to be that comparisons involving
Ambiguity?
Yeah, I'm worried about the possibility of parser failing to resolve
which operator is meant.
Any idea of how to test for that? What kind of situations would make
things difficult for the parser?
Also, how is this any different for any optional data type which
overrides = ?
On 09/20/2011 09:35 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Yeah, I was thinking of write()s, not fsyncs. I agree this might have
some effect during fsync phase.
Right; that's where the most serious problems seem to pop up at anyway
now. All the testing I did earlier this year suggested Linux at least
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
