Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On May 10, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 05/10/2012 06:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> How about a hybrid: we continue to identify patch authors as now, that is >> with names attached to the feature/bugfix descriptions, and then have a >> separate section "Other Contributors" to recogni

Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 idea, tablesample

[point splintered in quoting re-joined] Florian Pflug wrote: > On May10, 2012, at 18:36 , Kevin Grittner wrote: >> Robert Haas wrote: >> >>> I wonder if you could do this with something akin to the Bitmap >>> Heap Scan machinery. Populate a TID bitmap with a bunch of >>> randomly chosen TIDs, f

Re: [HACKERS] WIP Patch: Selective binary conversion of CSV file foreign tables

> -Original Message- > From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 1:36 AM > To: Etsuro Fujita > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WIP Patch: Selective binary conversion of CSV file > foreign tables > > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:26 A

Re: [HACKERS] PL/perl elog(ERROR) Does not Abort Transaction

"David E. Wheeler" writes: > Ooh, heisenbug. What version of Perl? Mine is 5.14.2 compiled from source. I also tried this on a Fedora 16 box, which has $ perl -v This is perl 5, version 14, subversion 2 (v5.14.2) built for x86_64-linux-thread-multi Works fine there too...

Re: [HACKERS] PL/perl elog(ERROR) Does not Abort Transaction

Bruce Momjian writes: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 05:27:26PM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote: >> Interesting. My build (from source): >> >> PostgreSQL 9.1.3 on x86_64-apple-darwin11.3.0, compiled by >> i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.1 (Based on Apple Inc. build >> 5658) (LLVM build 2336

Re: [HACKERS] PL/perl elog(ERROR) Does not Abort Transaction

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 05:46:06PM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On May 10, 2012, at 5:41 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > OK, still an abort on 9.1.X head: > > > > $ psql test > > psql (9.1.3) > > Type "help" for help. > > > > test=> begin; > > BEGIN > > test=> do l

Re: [HACKERS] PL/perl elog(ERROR) Does not Abort Transaction

On May 10, 2012, at 5:41 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > OK, still an abort on 9.1.X head: > > $ psql test > psql (9.1.3) > Type "help" for help. > > test=> begin; > BEGIN > test=> do language plperl $$ elog(ERROR, 'foo')$$; > ERROR: foo at line 1. >

Re: [HACKERS] PL/perl elog(ERROR) Does not Abort Transaction

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 05:27:26PM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On May 10, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >> > >> Shouldn't a call to elog(NOTICE) invalidate the current tranaction? > > > > I assume you mean elog(ERROR)? > > Yes, sorry. > > > Well, git head show an error: > >

Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 idea, tablesample

On May10, 2012, at 18:36 , Kevin Grittner wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > >> I wonder if you could do this with something akin to the Bitmap >> Heap Scan machinery. Populate a TID bitmap with a bunch of >> randomly chosen TIDs, fetch them all in physical order >> and if you don't get as many rows

Re: [HACKERS] PL/perl elog(ERROR) Does not Abort Transaction

On May 10, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >> Shouldn't a call to elog(NOTICE) invalidate the current tranaction? > > I assume you mean elog(ERROR)? Yes, sorry. > Well, git head show an error: > > test=> begin; > BEGIN > test=> do language plperl $$ elog(ERROR, 'fo

Re: [HACKERS] PL/perl elog(ERROR) Does not Abort Transaction

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 04:21:24PM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote: > Hackers, > > Shouldn't a call to elog(NOTICE) invalidate the current tranaction? I assume you mean elog(ERROR)? > david=# begin; > BEGIN > Time: 0.178 ms > david=# do language plperl $$ elog(ERROR, 'foo')$$; >

Re: [HACKERS] synchronous_commit and remote_write

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 03:55:45PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > So, are we shipping remote_write in beta1? > > Given that it's thursday afternoon US time, and we haven't changed it > yet, yes. Did we conclude just the docs are wrong and we do write (but not fsync) on the remote? -- Bruce

[HACKERS] PL/perl elog(ERROR) Does not Abort Transaction

Hackers, Shouldn't a call to elog(NOTICE) invalidate the current tranaction? david=# begin; BEGIN Time: 0.178 ms david=# do language plperl $$ elog(ERROR, 'foo')$$; ERROR: foo at line 1. CONTEXT: PL/Perl anonymous code block david=# select true; bool --

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 05/10/2012 06:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: How about a hybrid: we continue to identify patch authors as now, that is with names attached to the feature/bugfix descriptions, and then have a separate section "Other Contributors" to recognize patch reviewers and other helpers? works for me. che

Re: [HACKERS] synchronous_commit and remote_write

> So, are we shipping remote_write in beta1? Given that it's thursday afternoon US time, and we haven't changed it yet, yes. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] synchronous_commit and remote_write

On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 05:02:57PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > If so, we should also rename the column "write_location" in > > pg_stat_replication? > > Now that you bring it up, probably. Although not necessarily for 9.2. > > > I named "remote_write (originally write)" after that column. A

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 04:16:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > Well, that would be fine, too. What I think is bizarre is that I got > > credit for some things I was barely involved in (like SP-gist) and no > > credit for other things I spent a LOT of time on (like security vi

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

> The other problem with such an approach is that section (1) would be > extremely duplicative of the main release-notes text. How about a > hybrid: we continue to identify patch authors as now, that is with names > attached to the feature/bugfix descriptions, and then have a separate > section "

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Josh Berkus writes: >> It's been said elsewhere that adding all this to the release notes as >> found on the official docs would be too bulky. How about having a >> second copy of the release notes that contains authorship info as >> proposed by Andrew? Then the docs could have no names at all,

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

> It's been said elsewhere that adding all this to the release notes as > found on the official docs would be too bulky. How about having a > second copy of the release notes that contains authorship info as > proposed by Andrew? Then the docs could have no names at all, and > credit would be gi

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:51:28PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Not sure where to move that to.  Source Code doesn't seem right.  I > > moved it lower in the performance section. > > I'd just delete it. Instead, under index-only scans, I'd

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue may 10 16:07:33 -0400 2012: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > The important thing about the current mechanism is that it ties the > > contributor's name to a feature in the only place where we currently list > > features on a t

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Robert Haas writes: > Well, that would be fine, too. What I think is bizarre is that I got > credit for some things I was barely involved in (like SP-gist) and no > credit for other things I spent a LOT of time on (like security views > and some of KaiGai's other stuff), and similarly for other p

Re: [HACKERS] libpq URL syntax vs SQLAlchemy

Peter Eisentraut writes: > I have been reviewing how our new libpq URL syntax compares against > existing implementations of URL syntaxes in other drivers or > higher-level access libraries. In the case of SQLAlchemy, there is an > incompatibility regarding how Unix-domain sockets are specified

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > The important thing about the current mechanism is that it ties the > contributor's name to a feature in the only place where we currently list > features on a time basis. So if I (for example) want to put on my resume > that I contributed a

[HACKERS] WalSndWakeup() and synchronous_commit=off

Hi all, I noticed that when synchronous_commit=off were not waking up the wal sender latch in xact.c:RecordTransactionCommit which leads to ugly delays of approx 7 seconds (1 + replication_timeout/10) with default settings. Given that were flushing the wal to disk much sooner this appears to be

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Bruce Momjian writes: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:56:33AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> As a general comment, I think that your new policy of crediting the >> reviewer on every feature except when that reviewer is also a >> committer has produced a horrific mess. > I assumed reviewers mentioned i

Re: [HACKERS] Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters?

Fujii Masao writes: > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:07 AM, MauMau wrote: >> Thanks for your explanation. Although I haven't understood it well yet, I'll >> consider what you taught. And I'll consider if the tentative measure of >> removing KEEPONLYALNUM is correct for someone who wants to use pg_trg

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 05/10/2012 02:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: Then reviewers should be removed. I disagree. We're trying to get more reviewers, and encourage them to do more reviewing. Giving credit is a big part of that. Are you disagreeing with Bruce's p

Re: [HACKERS] Corner cases with GiST n-way splits

On 10.05.2012 21:04, Alexander Korotkov wrote: On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Heikki Linnakangas< heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: I found two corner cases with the current implementation when a page is split into many halves: 1. If a page is split into more than 100 pages, you r

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 5/10/12 9:44 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On tor, 2012-05-10 at 10:44 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> The big take-away is that the release notes are mostly for blame and >>> to designate a go-to person for feature problems, not for givin

Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 idea, tablesample

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Ants Aasma wrote: >> It seems to me that the simplest thing to do would be to lift the >> sampling done in analyze.c (acquire_sample_rows) and use that to >> implement the SYSTEM sampling method. > > Definitely.  I thought we had all agreed

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: Then reviewers should be removed. >>> >>> I disagree.  We're trying to get more reviewers, and encourage them to >>> do more reviewing.  Giving credit is a big part of that. >> >> Are you disagreeing with Bruce's premise, my logic, or the co

Re: [HACKERS] incorrect handling of the timeout in pg_receivexlog

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > And taking this a step further - we *already* send these GUCs. > Previous references to us not doing that were incorrect :-) > > So this should be a much easier fix than we thought. And can be done > entirely in pg_basebackup, meaning we d

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

"Improve GiST box and point index performance by producing better trees with less memory allocation overhead (Alexander Korotkov, Heikki Linnakangas, Kevin Grittner)" Is this note about following two commits? http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=7f3bd86843e5aad84585a57d

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

>>> Then reviewers should be removed. >> >> I disagree. We're trying to get more reviewers, and encourage them to >> do more reviewing. Giving credit is a big part of that. > > Are you disagreeing with Bruce's premise, my logic, or the conclusion? Hah, good point. I'm disagreeing with the con

Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 idea, tablesample

Ants Aasma wrote: > It seems to me that the simplest thing to do would be to lift the > sampling done in analyze.c (acquire_sample_rows) and use that to > implement the SYSTEM sampling method. Definitely. I thought we had all agreed on that ages ago. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mail

Re: [HACKERS] Corner cases with GiST n-way splits

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Heikki Linnakangas < heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > GiST page splitting has the peculiarity that it sometimes needs to split a > single page into more than two pages. It happens rarely in practice, but it > possible (*). With a bad picksplit function

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Not sure where to move that to.  Source Code doesn't seem right.  I > moved it lower in the performance section. I'd just delete it. Instead, under index-only scans, I'd mention it in the detail text: "This is possible because the visibilit

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 05:57:01AM -0700, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to > > git.  I am waiting for our development docs to build, but after 40 > > minutes, I am still waitin

Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 idea, tablesample

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I'm worried this project is getting so complicated that it will be > beyond the ability of a new hacker to get anything useful done.  Can > we simplify the requirements here to something that is reasonable for > a beginner? It seems to me that

Re: [HACKERS] PL/Python result set slicing broken in Python 3

On lör, 2012-05-05 at 22:45 +0200, Jan Urbański wrote: > Apparently once you implement PyMappingMethods.mp_subscript you can > drop PySequenceMethods.sq_slice, but I guess there's no harm in > keeping it (and I'm not sure it'd work on Python 2.3 with only > mp_subscript implemented). Committed thi

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:11:54PM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On 10 May 2012 04:11, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to > > git.  I am waiting for our development docs to build, but after 40 > > minutes, I am still waiting: > > "Al

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On tor, 2012-05-10 at 09:55 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 5/10/12 9:44 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On tor, 2012-05-10 at 10:44 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> The big take-away is that the release notes are mostly for blame and > >> to designate a go-to person for feature problems, not for gi

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 09:55:37AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 5/10/12 9:44 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On tor, 2012-05-10 at 10:44 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> The big take-away is that the release notes are mostly for blame and > >> to designate a go-to person for feature problems, not

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:18:08PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > (Why is there no time zone shown in the date/time at the top?)   I think > > it will eventually show up here: > > > >        http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/rele

[HACKERS] Corner cases with GiST n-way splits

GiST page splitting has the peculiarity that it sometimes needs to split a single page into more than two pages. It happens rarely in practice, but it possible (*). With a bad picksplit function, it happens more often. While testing with a custom gist opclass with truly evil helper functions,

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:50:14AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 10.05.2012 06:11, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to > >git. > > Thanks! I committed a few trivial fixes, below are a few more I > wasn't sure about: > > >* Add su

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:56:33AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > As a general comment, I think that your new policy of crediting the > reviewer on every feature except when that reviewer is also a > committer has produced a horrific mess. Just to pick one of many > examples, consider this item: > >

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:56:33AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to > > git. > > Extra parens: > Remove the spclocation field from pg_tablespace (Magnus Hagander, Tom Lane

Re: [HACKERS] Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters?

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:07 AM, MauMau wrote: > Thanks for your explanation. Although I haven't understood it well yet, I'll > consider what you taught. And I'll consider if the tentative measure of > removing KEEPONLYALNUM is correct for someone who wants to use pg_trgm > against Japanese text.

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 5/10/12 9:44 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On tor, 2012-05-10 at 10:44 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> The big take-away is that the release notes are mostly for blame and >> to designate a go-to person for feature problems, not for giving >> credit, > > Then reviewers should be removed. I disa

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 07:40:29PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On tor, 2012-05-10 at 12:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > openjade:/home/bf/bfr/root/HEAD/pgsql.9367/../pgsql/doc/src/sgml/release-9.2.sgml:1946:14:E: > > "324" is not a character number in the document character set > > > > I

Re: [HACKERS] "pgstat wait timeout" just got a lot more common on Windows

I wrote: > Hence I think we oughta swap the order of those two array > elements. (Same issue in PGSemaphoreLock, btw, and I'm suspicious of > pgwin32_select.) Oh ... while hacking win32 PGSemaphoreLock I saw that it has a *seriously* nasty bug: it does not reset ImmediateInterruptOK before return

Re: [HACKERS] PL/Python result set slicing broken in Python 3

On tor, 2012-05-10 at 12:37 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Jan Urbański wrote: > >> I found some instructions on how to deal with the Python 2/Python 3 > >> slicing mess: > >> > >> > >> http://renesd.blogspot.com/2009/07/python3-c-api-simple-slicing-sqslice.html > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On tor, 2012-05-10 at 10:44 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > The big take-away is that the release notes are mostly for blame and > to designate a go-to person for feature problems, not for giving > credit, Then reviewers should be removed. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@pos

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On tor, 2012-05-10 at 12:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > openjade:/home/bf/bfr/root/HEAD/pgsql.9367/../pgsql/doc/src/sgml/release-9.2.sgml:1946:14:E: > "324" is not a character number in the document character set > > I get the same, and so do some of the buildfarm members. I've changed > the te

Re: [HACKERS] PL/Python result set slicing broken in Python 3

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Jan Urbański wrote: >> I found some instructions on how to deal with the Python 2/Python 3 >> slicing mess: >> >> >> http://renesd.blogspot.com/2009/07/python3-c-api-simple-slicing-sqslice.html > > > Thanks to the helpful folk at #python I found out that the fix is

Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 idea, tablesample

Robert Haas wrote: > I wonder if you could do this with something akin to the Bitmap > Heap Scan machinery. Populate a TID bitmap with a bunch of > randomly chosen TIDs, fetch them all in physical order It would be pretty hard for any other plan to beat that by very much, so it seems like a g

Re: [HACKERS] WIP Patch: Selective binary conversion of CSV file foreign tables

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > I would like to propose to improve parsing efficiency of contrib/file_fdw by > selective parsing proposed by Alagiannis et al.[1], which means that for a > CSV/TEXT file foreign table, file_fdw performs binary conversion only for > the columns

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:24:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan writes: > > This has broken my docs build because of this line: > > > release-9.2.sgml:1946:Urbańnski, Steve Singer) > > > with this error: > > > > > openjade:/home/bf/bfr/root/HEAD/pgsql.9367/../pgsql/d

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On tor, 2012-05-10 at 17:31 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > If people want the main docs building more often that's not really a > problem other than time - we just need to decouple it from the > buildfarm and run a separate job for it. It's not rocket science.. Many years ago, Bruce and myself i

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Andrew Dunstan writes: > This has broken my docs build because of this line: > release-9.2.sgml:1946:Urbańnski, Steve Singer) > with this error: > > openjade:/home/bf/bfr/root/HEAD/pgsql.9367/../pgsql/doc/src/sgml/release-9.2.sgml:1946:14:E: > "324" is not a character number i

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:54:36AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >We could try cutting it down to one name and see if we have any problems > >with it. Robert is right that if you are thinking of this as "credit" > >it is never going to work. > > > > > I don't really buy this at all. The fact th

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 05/10/2012 11:32 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:26:14AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: There are some cases, like index-only scans, where I think it would be very hard to get down to one name, because four different people wrote code that ended up being part of that. Now yo

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:46:20AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >>I don't think 5 minutes is anywhere near necessary even for the docs, > >>but there is a lot of room between 5 minutes and 4 hours, so we can > >>definitely shorten it. > >Do you want me to just setup a build on my machine like we

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 05/10/2012 11:24 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:49:51PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 05/10/2012 01:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjianwrites: The docs finally built 90 minutes after my commit, and the

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Bruce Momjian writes: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:26:14AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> Honestly, I'm leaning more and more toward the view that we should >> just rip the names out entirely. > We will need to make some decision in the next few hours. I think this is a delicate question and we sh

Re: [HACKERS] "pgstat wait timeout" just got a lot more common on Windows

Magnus Hagander writes: > On May 10, 2012 4:59 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote: >> I spent some time staring at the Windows WaitLatchOrSocket code myself. >> The only thing I could find that seemed wrong is that in the event >> array, we list the latch's event before pgwin32_signal_event. The >> Microsoft

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 05:31:15PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > I use the doc build to show patch submitters what their final work looks > > like, and anything more than a few minutes delay makes that useless. > > > > Anything that runs off the main git repo would be useless there, since it

Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 idea, tablesample

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> One problem I see with this approach is that its efficiency >> depends on the average tuple length, at least with a naive >> approach to random ctid generator. The simplest way to generate >> those randomly without introducing bias is to g

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:26:14AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > There are some cases, like index-only scans, where I think it would be > very hard to get down to one name, because four different people wrote > code that ended up being part of that. Now you could probably get it > down to just two b

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On May 10, 2012 5:24 PM, "Bruce Momjian" wrote: > > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:49:51PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 05/10/2012 01:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> > > >> Bruce Momjian writes: > > >>> > > >>> The docs

Re: [HACKERS] "pgstat wait timeout" just got a lot more common on Windows

On May 10, 2012 4:59 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote: > > I wrote: > > Last night I changed the stats collector process to use > > WaitLatchOrSocket instead of a periodic forced wakeup to see whether > > the postmaster has died. This morning I observe that several Windows > > buildfarm members are showing r

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> Yes.  This seems to be a policy change that was made without notice or >> discussion, and I personally don't find it to be a good idea.  I think >> the release notes should only credit the primary author(s) of a feature. >> Face it, most pe

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:49:51PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > > > On 05/10/2012 01:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> > >> Bruce Momjian  writes: > >>> > >>> The docs finally built 90 minutes after my commit, and the URL above is > >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Bruce Momjian writes: > Should I make the change now? It is easy. Yes. > Should we remove the names completely? That would be a policy change too, and one that probably requires more leisurely consideration than we have time for today. regards, tom lane -- Sent via p

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 07:20:51AM +0200, Erik Rijkers wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 06:33, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:11:02PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> > >>http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release-9-2.html > > > > To "E.1.2.5. Monitoring" should be a

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:04:47AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > When we did the 9.1 release notes, reviewers weren't credited, and I > > sort of assumed that policy would be the same this time around. > > Yes. This seems to be a policy change that was made without notice or >

Re: [HACKERS] checkpointer code behaving strangely on postmaster -T

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of jue may 10 02:27:32 -0400 2012: >> Alvaro Herrera writes: > I noticed while doing some tests that the checkpointer process does not > recover very nicely after a backend crashes under postmaster -T > It seems to me that the bug is in t

Re: [HACKERS] Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters?

From: "Kevin Grittner" "MauMau" wrote: For information, what kind of breakage would occur? I imagined removing KEEPONLYALNUM would just accept non-alphanumeric characters and cause no harm to those who use only alphanumeric characters. This would break our current usages because of the ha

Re: [HACKERS] checkpointer code behaving strangely on postmaster -T

Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of jue may 10 02:27:32 -0400 2012: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > I noticed while doing some tests that the checkpointer process does not > > recover very nicely after a backend crashes under postmaster -T (after > > all processes have been kill -CONTd, of course, a

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Robert Haas writes: > When we did the 9.1 release notes, reviewers weren't credited, and I > sort of assumed that policy would be the same this time around. Yes. This seems to be a policy change that was made without notice or discussion, and I personally don't find it to be a good idea. I thin

Re: [HACKERS] "pgstat wait timeout" just got a lot more common on Windows

I wrote: > Last night I changed the stats collector process to use > WaitLatchOrSocket instead of a periodic forced wakeup to see whether > the postmaster has died. This morning I observe that several Windows > buildfarm members are showing regression test failures caused by > unexpected "pgstat w

Re: [HACKERS] incorrect handling of the timeout in pg_receivexlog

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Argh. This thread appears to have been forgotten - sorry about that. >> >> Given that we're taling about a potential protocol change, we really >> should resolve this before we wra

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 09:20:32AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Excerpts from Peter Geoghegan's message of jue may 10 09:12:57 -0400 2012: > > On 10 May 2012 13:45, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Right, but I think it would be good to identify them explicitly as > > > reviewers > > > if we're g

Re: [HACKERS] incorrect handling of the timeout in pg_receivexlog

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Argh. This thread appears to have been forgotten - sorry about that. > > Given that we're taling about a potential protocol change, we really > should resolve this before we wrap beta, no? Had a chat with Heikki about this, and we came to

Re: [HACKERS] Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters?

"MauMau" wrote: >>> On 09-05-2012 19:17, MauMau wrote: Then, does it make sense to remove "#define KEEPONLYALNUM" in 9.1.4? Would it cause any problems? Yes, it will cause problems. > For information, what kind of breakage would occur? > I imagined removing KEEPONLYALNUM would ju

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On 10 May 2012 13:45, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> Right, but I think it would be good to identify them explicitly as reviewers >> if we're going to include the names. > > +1. I think we should probably do more to credit reviewers. It's not >

Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 idea, tablesample

Florian Pflug wrote: > One problem I see with this approach is that its efficiency > depends on the average tuple length, at least with a naive > approach to random ctid generator. The simplest way to generate > those randomly without introducing bias is to generate a random > page index between

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Excerpts from Peter Geoghegan's message of jue may 10 09:12:57 -0400 2012: > On 10 May 2012 13:45, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Right, but I think it would be good to identify them explicitly as reviewers > > if we're going to include the names. > > +1. I think we should probably do more to credit

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 10 May 2012 13:45, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Right, but I think it would be good to identify them explicitly as reviewers > if we're going to include the names. +1. I think we should probably do more to credit reviewers. It's not uncommon for a reviewer to end up becoming a co-author, particular

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of jue may 10 07:19:53 -0400 2012: > BTW, if there has been no change a buildfarm animal normally does no > work (other than a git pull followed by the check for updates), which is > why it's often safe to schedule it very frequently. However, if you need

Re: [HACKERS] incorrect handling of the timeout in pg_receivexlog

Argh. This thread appears to have been forgotten - sorry about that. Given that we're taling about a potential protocol change, we really should resolve this before we wrap beta, no? On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to > git.  I am waiting for our development docs to build, but after 40 > minutes, I am still waiting: This bit: Previously supplied years and year masks of less than four

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 05/10/2012 08:28 AM, Vik Reykja wrote: On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Andrew Dunstan > wrote: On 05/10/2012 08:11 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: I'm not really sure why you've listed Daniel Farina as a co-author of the pg_stat_statements norm

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 10.05.2012 13:21, Thom Brown wrote: On 10 May 2012 04:11, Bruce Momjian wrote: I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to git. > ... Couple typo corrections attached. Applied. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 05/10/2012 08:11 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > >> I'm not really sure why you've listed Daniel Farina as a co-author of the >> pg_stat_statements normalisation feature. He did a good job of reviewing >> it, but he didn't actually cont

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 10 May 2012 13:11, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Why can't we call group commit group commit (and for that matter, > index-only scans index-only scans), so that people will understand > that we are now competitive with other RDBMSs in this area? "Improve > performance of WAL writes when multiple tr

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

On 05/10/2012 08:11 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: I'm not really sure why you've listed Daniel Farina as a co-author of the pg_stat_statements normalisation feature. He did a good job of reviewing it, but he didn't actually contribute any code. It looks like reviewers have been given credit th

  1   2   >