Hi!
Thanks for your fixes to the patch. Them looks correct to me. I did some
fixes in the patch. The proof of some concepts is still needed. I'm going
to provide it in a few days.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
I'm not sure about shared lossy counting
Hello, This is revised and rebased version of the patch.
a. Old term `Add Tuple Function' is changed to 'Store
Handler'. The reason why not `storage' is simply length of the
symbols.
b. I couldn't find the place to settle PGgetAsCString() in. It is
removed and storeHandler()@dblink.c
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 01:49:54AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
- I'm not sure that the multixact truncation code is sane on
checkpoints. It might be that I need to tweak more the pg_control info
we keep about truncation. The whole truncation thing needs more
testing, too.
My largest
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 04:52:36PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of lun ene 16 16:17:42 -0300 2012:
On 15.01.2012 06:49, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
--- 164,178
#define HEAP_HASVARWIDTH0x0002/* has variable-width
attribute(s) */
On 04.01.2012 17:05, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 4 January 2012 07:24, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
I think SetBufferCommitInfoNeedsSave() needs the same treatment as
MarkBufferDirty(). And it would probably be good to only set the latch if
the buffer wasn't
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:04:06PM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Thanks for your fixes to the patch. Them looks correct to me. I did some
fixes in the patch. The proof of some concepts is still needed. I'm going
to provide it in a few days.
Your further fixes look good. Could you also
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
WALRestore process asynchronously executes restore_command while
recovery continues working.
Overlaps downloading of next WAL file to reduce time
hi,
I started reading the spgist vacuum code last night, and didn't like it
at all. I found a number of smaller issues, but it seems to me that
the design is just fundamentally wrong. Unless I'm misunderstanding it,
the approach is to recursively traverse the tree in sort of the same way
Excerpts from Greg Smith's message of lun ene 16 19:25:50 -0300 2012:
On 01/16/2012 03:48 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
I'll also point out that the process for *applying* a patch, if you
don't subscribe to hackers and keep archives around on your personal
machine for months, is also very
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Martin Pihlak martin.pih...@gmail.com wrote:
My approach was to add parent oid to the per-backend function stats
structure - PgStat_BackendFunctionEntry. Also, I changed the hash key
for that structure to (oid, parent) pair. This means that within the
backend
On 17.01.2012 12:16, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 04.01.2012 17:05, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 4 January 2012 07:24, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
I think SetBufferCommitInfoNeedsSave() needs the same treatment as
MarkBufferDirty(). And it would probably be good
Hello
I did review of this small patch
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1326055692.15293.15.ca...@vanquo.pezone.net
* This patch was applied without with one hunk and compiled without warnings
bash-4.2$ patch -p1 autocompleta.patch
patching file src/bin/psql/tab-complete.c
Hunk #2
Am 13.01.2012 22:50, schrieb Josh Berkus:
Hackers,
It occurs to me that I would find it quite personally useful if the
vacuumdb utility was multiprocess capable.
For example, just today I needed to manually analyze a database with
over 500 tables, on a server with 24 cores. And I needed to
On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 01:18:53 PM Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
I would prefer to have an option that the user is able to tell on how much
cores it should be shared. Something like --share-cores=N.
Uhm. -j # does exactly that or am I missing your point?
Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 01:18:53 PM Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
I would prefer to have an option that the user is able to tell on how much
cores it should be shared. Something like --share-cores=N.
Uhm. -j # does exactly
On 17 January 2012 11:24, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
In the patch I sent, I did rearrange the sleeping logic. I think it's more
readable the way it is now.
I have no objection to either your refinement of the sleeping logic,
nor that you moved some things in
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Anyway, I'm hoping to keep hacking at this for a couple more days before
the CF gets into full swing, and hopefully arrive at something committable
for 9.2. I'd really like to get this fixed in this cycle, since it's
been a problem for several releases now.
On 01/17/2012 07:33 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Andres Freundand...@anarazel.de wrote:
On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 01:18:53 PM Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
I would prefer to have an option that the user is able to tell on how much
cores it should be shared.
On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 01:33:06 PM Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 01:18:53 PM Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
I would prefer to have an option that the user is able to tell on how
much cores it should
On 16 January 2012 08:11, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Impressive results. How about uploading the PDF to the community wiki?
Sure. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Group_commit .
I think it might be simpler if it wasn't the background writer that's
responsible
On 20 December 2011 10:27, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Doing it in numeric should be perfectly fine. The only real reason to
pick int8 over in this context would be performance, but it's not like
this is something that's going to be called in really performance
critical paths...
Right now, psql \timing output only gives output for successful
queries. Is there any actual reason for this, or just a it happened?
In particular,I just had a very long run of a CREATE UNIQUE INDEX fail
pretty far in - and I would've really liked to have timing output for
that one even though it
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 04:28, Theo Schlossnagle je...@omniti.com wrote:
So... here's my first whack at solving this with some flexibility.
The first thing I did was add hook points where immediate statement
logging happens pre_exec and those that present duration
post_exec. These should,
2012/1/17 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
The attached patch adds OAT_DROP object-access-hook around permission
checks of object deletion.
Due to the previous drop statement reworks, the number of places to
put this
On 01/17/2012 12:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, since I see other committers sending in patches the day after the
nominal commitfest deadline, I don't feel too bad about being a bit late
as well.
To clarify the fairness standard here: submitting a patch before the
CommitFest deadline, then
On mån, 2012-01-16 at 17:25 -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
The most reasonable answer to this is for people to publish a git repo
URL in addition to the official submission of changes to the list in
patch form.
Note that the original complaint was that for the occasional reviewer,
the current
On 01/16/2012 05:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments,
one that will allow you to download patches separately. (Currently,
attachments that have mime types other than text/plain are already
downloadable separately).
Are you
Excerpts from Marti Raudsepp's message of mar ene 17 12:12:50 -0300 2012:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 04:28, Theo Schlossnagle je...@omniti.com wrote:
So... here's my first whack at solving this with some flexibility.
The first thing I did was add hook points where immediate statement
It appears that the only way to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint
is using ALTER TABLE. Is there no support in CREATE TABLE planned?
That looks a bit odd.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On mån, 2012-01-16 at 14:46 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On mån, 2012-01-16 at 11:17 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I don't see how setting indisvalid to false helps with this, because
IIUC when a session sees indisvalid =
Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of mar ene 17 13:59:57 -0300 2012:
It appears that the only way to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint
is using ALTER TABLE. Is there no support in CREATE TABLE planned?
That looks a bit odd.
There are no plans to do that AFAIR, though maybe you
On 17/01/2012 17:50, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Matteo Beccati's message of mar ene 17 12:33:27 -0300 2012:
My proof of concept archive for the hackers ML site is still online, in
case anyone has trouble downloading the patches or just wants to have
the full thread handy.
I was
On 17/01/2012 18:10, Matteo Beccati wrote:
On 17/01/2012 17:50, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Matteo Beccati's message of mar ene 17 12:33:27 -0300 2012:
My proof of concept archive for the hackers ML site is still online, in
case anyone has trouble downloading the patches or just wants
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 01/16/2012 05:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments,
one that will allow you to download patches separately. (Currently,
attachments that have mime types other than text/plain are
Hi,
Here's my review for the logging hooks patch queued for the 2012-01
CommitFest by Martin Pihlak.
Submission review
The patch is in context diff format and applies fine. Tests are not
included and don't seem practical for this patch.
More documentation would always be nice, but as other
On 17.01.2012 16:35, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 16 January 2012 08:11, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
I think it might be simpler if it wasn't the background writer that's
responsible for driving the group commit queue, but the backends
themselves. When a flush
Attached is the pg_test_timing utility portion of this submission,
broken out into its own patch. It's a contrib module modeled on
pg_test_fsync.
The documentation is still a bit rough, I'm not done with that yet. I
have included an example of good timing results, switching to a bad
clock
On 17 January 2012 17:37, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
I found it very helpful to reduce wal_writer_delay in pgbench tests, when
running with synchronous_commit=off. The reason is that hint bits don't get
set until the commit record is flushed to disk, so making
On 01/17/2012 11:50 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On mån, 2012-01-16 at 17:25 -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
The most reasonable answer to this is for people to publish a git repo
URL in addition to the official submission of changes to the list in
patch form.
Note that the original complaint was that
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar ene 17 14:24:05 -0300 2012:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 01/16/2012 05:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments,
one that will allow you to download patches separately.
Excerpts from Matteo Beccati's message of mar ene 17 12:33:27 -0300 2012:
On 16/01/2012 23:40, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Greg Smith's message of lun ene 16 19:25:50 -0300 2012:
On 01/16/2012 03:48 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
I'll also point out that the process for *applying*
On 16/01/2012 23:40, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Greg Smith's message of lun ene 16 19:25:50 -0300 2012:
On 01/16/2012 03:48 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
I'll also point out that the process for *applying* a patch, if you
don't subscribe to hackers and keep archives around on your
We have some numbers for 9.2 runs with and without double writes now. We
are still using the double-write patch that assumes checksums on data
pages, so checksums must be turned on for double writes.
The first set of runs are 50-warehouse 2-processor DBT2 60-minute run,
with checkpoints every 5
On mån, 2012-01-16 at 22:00 -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
Adjusting that expectation is another side to pragmatism based on
recent history I think needs to be acknowledged, but is unlikely to be
improved on. 9.0 shipped on September 20. 9.1 shipped on September
11. If we say the last CF of each
On 20.12.2011 19:59, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 20.12.2011 11:20, Magnus Hagander wrote:
2011/12/20 Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz:
I haven't updated the docs yet - let's see if the patch is acceptable at
all first.
Again, without having reviewed the code, this looks like a feature
we'd want, so
Dan Scales sca...@vmware.com wrote:
The second set of numbers is for a hard disk with write cache
turned off, closer to internal hard disks of servers (people were
quite interested in that result). These runs are for 50-warehouse
8-processor DBT2 60-minute run, with checkpoints every 5
On 01/17/2012 07:35 PM, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
Here's my review for the logging hooks patch queued for the 2012-01
CommitFest by Martin Pihlak.
Thanks for reviewing!
There's a minor whitespace problem. When declaring variables, and the
data type is longer than 12 characters, just use 1
Hi!
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 23:07, Martin Pihlak martin.pih...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the hook warrants a comment that, whether the messages will be
seen, depends on the log_min_messages setting.
Comment added.
Nice :)
It seems you missed a comment, that the current implementation is also
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
But on the flip side, I think we're generally a bit more flexible
about exposing things via C than through the procedural languages.
Then as Andres proposed, a new function would be available to get the
On 16 January 2012 08:06, Ilya Kosmodemiansky hydrobi...@gmail.com wrote:
That is quite useful feature to implement smth. like message queues
based on database and so on.
Now there is possibility to jump over luck of such feature in Postgres
using current advisory lock implementation
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
I still have some cleaning to do before to prepare the next patch
version, such as documentation updating and dealing with rewrites of
CHECK and DEFAULT column constraints in CREATE TABLE. I had to add
support for the T_A_Const parser node, and
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On mån, 2012-01-16 at 22:00 -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
Adjusting that expectation is another side to pragmatism based on
recent history I think needs to be acknowledged, but is unlikely to be
improved on. 9.0 shipped on
On Jan 17, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of mar ene 17 13:59:57 -0300 2012:
It appears that the only way to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint
is using ALTER TABLE. Is there no support in CREATE TABLE planned?
That looks a bit odd.
On Jan 13, 2012, at 4:15 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:
Have two logical tasks:
a) A process that manages the list, and
b) Child processes doing vacuums.
Each time a child completes a table, it asks the parent for another one.
There is also a middle ground, because having the the scheduling
On Jan 15, 2012, at 4:42 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Attached is a patch that myself and Simon Riggs collaborated on. I
took the group commit patch that Simon posted to the list back in
November, and partially rewrote it.
Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but I noticed a few places doing
Excerpts from Jim Nasby's message of mar ene 17 21:21:57 -0300 2012:
On Jan 15, 2012, at 4:42 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Attached is a patch that myself and Simon Riggs collaborated on. I
took the group commit patch that Simon posted to the list back in
November, and partially rewrote it.
On 01/17/2012 03:47 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I'm very curious about what impact DW would have on big servers with
write-back cache that becomes saturated, like in Greg Smith's post
here...
My guess is that a percentage of the dbt-2 run results posted here are
hitting that sort of problem.
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mar ene 17 13:50:20 -0300 2012:
On 01/16/2012 05:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments,
one that will allow you to download patches separately. (Currently,
attachments that have mime
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
I found it very helpful to reduce wal_writer_delay in pgbench tests, when
running with synchronous_commit=off. The reason is that hint bits don't get
set until the commit record is flushed to disk,
On 01/17/2012 07:09 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On Jan 13, 2012, at 4:15 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:
Have two logical tasks:
a) A process that manages the list, and
b) Child processes doing vacuums.
Each time a child completes a table, it asks the parent for another one.
There is also a middle
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On mån, 2012-01-16 at 14:46 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On mån, 2012-01-16 at 11:17 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I don't see how setting indisvalid to
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Right now, psql \timing output only gives output for successful
queries. Is there any actual reason for this, or just a it happened?
In particular,I just had a very long run of a CREATE UNIQUE INDEX fail
pretty far
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Marti Raudsepp ma...@juffo.org wrote:
Are there corner cases the author has failed to consider?
The hook can be executed by various processes since it's in
EmitErrorReport(). OTOH, log messages are written to the log
file by one process like syslogger (if you use
On Jan 15, 2012, at 8:13 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
On 01/15/2012 04:17 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I think it makes more sense to use the max read rate as the main knob,
rather than write rate. That's because the max read rate is higher than the
write rate, when you don't need to dirty pages.
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of mar ene 17 22:23:13 -0300 2012:
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mar ene 17 13:50:20 -0300 2012:
On 01/16/2012 05:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments,
one that will
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
Do I modify the patch to place object-access-hook on deleteOneObject
(probably, it is the best position to track actual deletion)?
One problem is case of deletion of columns by ALTER TABLE.
It just marks attisdropped
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
BTW, can you also resubmit the leakproof stuff as a separate patch for
the last CF? Want to make sure we get that into 9.2, if at all
possible.
Yes, it shall be attached on the next message.
The attached patch adds
It appears that the only way to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint
is using ALTER TABLE. Is there no support in CREATE TABLE planned?
That looks a bit odd.
There are no plans to do that AFAIR, though maybe you could convince
Nikhil to write the patch to do so.
That certainly
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 04:01:23PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Thus - if I were to change psql to output timing on failed queries as
well, will anybody object? ;)
+1
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Jim Mlodgenski jimm...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a need to send banner messages to a psql client that I can set
on the server and will be displayed on any psql client that connects
to the database. This would be mostly used as an additional indicator
to which
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
When I say skip the shutdown checkpoint, I mean remove it from the
critical path of required actions at the end of recovery. We can still
have a
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
I guess you concerned about that expected/select_views_1.out is
patched, not expected/select_views.out.
I'm not sure the reason why regression test script tries to make diff
between results/select_views and
72 matches
Mail list logo
