On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 09:49, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
i little review...
Thanks! By the way, you should update to the v7 patch.
first, i notice a change of behaviour... i'm not sure if i can say
this is good or not.
if you execute: select *, cached_random() from (select
On 16 January 2012 21:30, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Useful, yes. Harder than it looks, probably. I tried to mock up a
version of this years ago for a project where I needed it, and ran into
all kinds of race conditions.
Can you remember any details about those race conditions?
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
[ working on this patch now ... ]
Matthew Draper matt...@trebex.net writes:
On 25/01/12 18:37, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
Should we throw an error in such ambiguity? Or did you make it happen
intentionally? If latter, we should
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:00 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
- What happens if DROP EXTENSION ... CASCADE? Does it work?
It should, what happens when you
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I think saner behavior might only require this change:
/*
* Any unexpected exit (including FATAL exit) of the startup
* process is treated as a crash, except that we don't want to
On 01/24/2012 08:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
One somewhat odd thing about these numbers is that, on permanent
tables, all of the patches seemed to show regressions vs. master in
single-client throughput. That's a slightly difficult result to
believe, though, so it's probably a testing artifact of
Tom Lane wrote:
More to the point, a GUC rollback transition *has to always
succeed*. Period.
I was about to point out the exception of the transaction_read_only
GUC, which according to the standard must not be changed except at
the beginning of a transaction or a subtransaction, and must
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
More to the point, a GUC rollback transition *has to always
succeed*. Period.
[ counterexample showing we should sometimes disallow RESET ]
This actually isn't what I was talking about: a RESET statement is a
commanded
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 16 January 2012 00:59, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it would be better to pre-deduct the tape overhead amount we
will need if we decide to switch to tape sort from the availMem before
we even
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Attached is a completely uncommitable proof of concept/work in
progress patch to get around the limitation. It shows a 2 fold
improvement when indexing an integer column on a 50,000,000 row
randomly ordered table.
Oops,
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The reason it is relevant
to our current problem is that even though RestoreBkpBlocks faithfully
takes exclusive lock on the buffer, *that is not enough to guarantee
that no one else is touching that buffer*. Another backend
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Patch to do that attached
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services
diff --git a/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
The cause here is data changing underneath the user. Your patch solves
the most obvious error, but it still allows other problems if applying
the backup block changes data. If the backup block doesn't do anything
at all then we don't need to apply it
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
Ping. In case you don't have updates soon, I'll mark Returned with Feedback.
Pong. Sorry about my recent silence.
I've not been in a position to work on this recently, and am done with
those other duties now. I intend to be posting an updated patch
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I think we should be working to commit XLogInsert and then Group
Commit,
Tom Lane wrote:
What I was concerned about was the case where GUC is trying to
re-establish an old value during transaction rollback. For example,
assume we are superuser to start with, and we do
begin;
set role unprivileged_user;
...
rollback;
The rollback needs to
* Tom Lane:
I wonder whether it wouldn't be sufficient to call sync(2) at the end,
anyway, rather than cluttering the entire initdb codebase with fsync
calls.
We tried to do this in the Debian package mananger. It works as
expected on Linux systems, but it can cause a lot of data to hit the
On Sat, 2012-01-28 at 13:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah. Personally I would be sad if initdb got noticeably slower, and
I've never seen or heard of a failure that this would fix.
I worked up a patch, and it looks like it does about 6 file fsync's and
a 7th for the PGDATA directory. That
Matthew Draper matt...@trebex.net writes:
[ sql-named-param-refs-v2.patch ]
Applied with some editorialization: I switched the behavior for two-part
names as discussed, and did some other mostly-cosmetic code cleanup,
and did some work on the documentation.
I'm still not sure whether to just
On Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 03:41:27PM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Sat, 2012-01-28 at 13:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah. Personally I would be sad if initdb got noticeably slower, and
I've never seen or heard of a failure that this would fix.
I worked up a patch, and it looks like it does
Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com writes:
I suspect we will be unwilling to make such a break with the past. In
that case, I think I prefer the originally proposed semantics, even
though I agree they are somewhat less natural. ANALYZE is a big flag
that means This query will be executed, not
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 04:25:19PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 04:01:02PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
Why don't you use the same tricks as the former patch and copy the buffer,
compute
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 03:56:58PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
Also, as far as I can see this patch usurps the page version field,
which I find unacceptably short-sighted. Do you really think this is
the last page layout change we'll ever make?
No, I don't. I hope and expect the next page
Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah, I think we need to preserve that property. Unexpectedly
executing query (which may have side-effects) is a very dangerous
thing. People are used to the idea that ANALYZE == execute, and
adding random other flags that also cause execution is going to
burn somebody.
24 matches
Mail list logo
