On fre, 2012-04-06 at 00:25 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Some moments of radical thinking later, I became unhappy with the fact
that the conninfo stuff and parameter keywords are all crammed in the
PQconnectdbParams description. This feels wrong to me, even more so
after we expand it even
On lör, 2012-03-24 at 10:01 +, Gianni Ciolli wrote:
ON (DELETE | UPDATE) actions for EACH foreign keys
==
-- --- ---
|ON |ON |
Action| DELETE | UPDATE |
On 04/05/2012 04:27 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
It's shocking since after months of work and an especially extended
edition CF, we expect people to deliver something, not just shunt the
whole thing off as rejected with 1 days's notice to alter that
outcome.
I don't think this is being fair to
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 04/05/2012 04:27 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
It's shocking since after months of work and an especially extended
edition CF, we expect people to deliver something, not just shunt the
whole thing off as rejected with 1 days's notice to alter that
outcome.
On 04/05/2012 05:03 PM, Daniel Farina wrote:
To get to the point, I wonder if it makes sense for someone who has a
better sense a-priori what they're looking for in a committable patch
(i.e. a committer, or someone with a telepathic link to one or more)
to delegate specific pieces of patches for
(2012/04/06 1:29), Tom Lane wrote:
Albe Laurenzlaurenz.a...@wien.gv.at writes:
Maybe the FDW API could be extended so that foreign data wrappers
can provide a random sample to avoid a full table scan.
The one thing that seems pretty clear from this discussion is that one
size doesn't fit
Well, the patent argument, used like this, looks like a wild card, which
can be freely interpreted as a mortal danger for some, and a non-issue for
others. A perfect scare-mongerer.
Quite frankly, I don't buy that one implementation is safer because there
is Google backing it. I can't think of any
On 05/04/12 08:02, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
2012-04-04 21:30 keltezéssel, Alvaro Herrera írta:
I think this patch is doing two things: first touching infrastructure
stuff and then adding lock_timeout on top of that. Would it work to
split the patch in two pieces?
Sure. Attached is the
Excuse me for cutting in,
2012/4/6 Shigeru HANADA shigeru.han...@gmail.com:
To support foreign-table ANALYZE by adding a new hook, we would need a
mechanism (or at least documented guide lines) to manage the chain of
hook functions, because such hook might be used by multiple FDWs (or
other
Shigeru HANADA shigeru.han...@gmail.com writes:
(2012/04/06 1:29), Tom Lane wrote:
The one thing that seems pretty clear from this discussion is that one
size doesn't fit all. I think we really ought to provide a hook so that
the FDW can determine whether ANALYZE applies to its foreign tables
On 29 March 2012 21:05, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Barring objections I'll go fix this, and then this patch can be
considered closed except for possible future tweaking of the
sticky-entry decay rule.
Attached patch fixes a bug, and tweaks sticky-entry decay.
The extant code bumps
On 04/05/2012 02:23 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
If there's a fundamental flaw in how linux deals with heavy writes that
means you can't rely on certain latency windows, perhaps we should be
looking at using a different OS to test those cases...
Performance under this sort of write overload is
On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 09:21:17AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On l??r, 2012-03-24 at 10:01 +, Gianni Ciolli wrote:
ON (DELETE | UPDATE) actions for EACH foreign keys
==
-- --- ---
On 04/05/2012 12:32 PM, Joachim Wieland wrote:
So here's a pg_dump benchmark from a real world database as requested
earlier. This is a ~750 GB large 9.0.6 database, and the backup has
been done over the internal network from a different machine. Both
machines run Linux.
I am attaching a
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Another concern is the place where we hook the process of ANALYZE. IOW,
how much portion of ANALYZE should be overridable?
Not much, IMO. The FDW should be able to decide whether or not to
analyze a particular table, and it
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 02:05, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
If anything, we should be changing it to TLSv1 in both client and
server, since every client out there now should be using that anyway,
given that the client has been specifying it for
Shigeru Hanada shigeru.han...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
In
particular I do not like the specific way it's done in the v7 patch
(I've not looked at v8 yet) because the interposed logic has a
hard-wired assumption that foreign tables
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
True. I guess I was just assuming that JDBC (and npgsql i think?) were
using TLS - I would assume that to be the default in both Java and
.NET. We'd have to check that before making a change of course - and
I'm not convinced we need to make the
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 18:43, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
True. I guess I was just assuming that JDBC (and npgsql i think?) were
using TLS - I would assume that to be the default in both Java and
.NET. We'd have to check that before making a
On 3/30/12 7:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Arun Chaitanya chaitan64a...@gmail.com writes:
The link to the paper is
http://www.iith.ac.in/~ravig/courses/cs5050/papers/decorrelation-cesar.pdf
Given the authorship of that paper, I'd have to wonder whether Microsoft
has filed for any patents regarding
Shigeru HANADA shigeru.han...@gmail.com writes:
Just after my post, Fujita-san posted another v7 patch[1], so I merged
v7 patches into v8 patch.
I've committed a modified version of this, but right after pushing it
I had a better idea about what the AnalyzeForeignTable API should do.
An issue
On tor, 2012-04-05 at 23:22 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
I attach a patch to correct various system catalog/view definitions in the
docs.
Committed.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On fre, 2012-04-06 at 01:24 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
I also found a couple typos in completely different sections. (patch
attached)
Apologies, that last patch had one correction in the wrong place.
Reattached.
Committed.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Hi,
I can't explain why I'm seeing a range type installcheck failure as I
don't see the same problem on the buildfarm, but out of all the tests
run, the range types test is the only one to fail.
I've attached the diff and the rangetypes.out file. It appears that
while the rows output are the
On 6 April 2012 21:56, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On fre, 2012-04-06 at 01:24 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
I also found a couple typos in completely different sections. (patch
attached)
Apologies, that last patch had one correction in the wrong place.
Reattached.
Committed.
Thom Brown t...@linux.com writes:
I can't explain why I'm seeing a range type installcheck failure as I
don't see the same problem on the buildfarm, but out of all the tests
run, the range types test is the only one to fail.
I can duplicate that output ordering if I force it to use indexscans,
On 6 April 2012 22:35, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Thom Brown t...@linux.com writes:
I can't explain why I'm seeing a range type installcheck failure as I
don't see the same problem on the buildfarm, but out of all the tests
run, the range types test is the only one to fail.
I can
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Shigeru HANADA shigeru.han...@gmail.com writes:
Just after my post, Fujita-san posted another v7 patch[1], so I merged
v7 patches into v8 patch.
I've committed a modified version of this, but right after pushing it
I had a
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 4/4/12 4:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Stark st...@mit.edu writes:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Why is this pgbench run accessing so much unhinted data that is 1
million
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 13:11 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
I confirmed this bug upgrading 9.1 to master, and that this patch fixes
it. Thank you for the report!
Patch looks good to me as well, with one very minor nitpick: the added
comment is missing an apostrophe.
Bruce, can you take a look at
30 matches
Mail list logo
