Hi Alexander,
It was good seeing you in Ottawa!
Hello, Ishii-san!
We've talked on PGCon that I've questions about mule to wchar
conversion. My questions about pg_mule2wchar_with_len function are
following. In these parts of code:
*
*
else if (IS_LCPRV1(*from) len = 3)
{
from++;
On 22 May 2012 06:50, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Currently, the planner keeps paths that appear to win on the grounds of
either cheapest startup cost or cheapest total cost. It suddenly struck
me that in many simple cases (viz, those with no LIMIT, EXISTS, cursor
fast-start
On 22 May 2012 02:50, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Not very sure why a metapage is better than a catalog table.
Mostly because there's no chance of the startup process accessing a
catalog table during recovery, but it can read a metapage.
OK, sounds reasonable.
Based upon all
On 21 May 2012 20:40, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
This is important. I like the idea of breaking down the barriers
between databases to allow it to be an option for one backend to
access tables in multiple databases. The current mechanism doesn't
actually prevent looking at data
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org wrote:
I think it's possible. The first characters are defined like this:
#define IS_LCPRV1(c)((unsigned char)(c) == 0x9a || (unsigned char)(c)
== 0x9b)
#define IS_LCPRV2(c)((unsigned char)(c) == 0x9c || (unsigned
On 22/05/12 11:46, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 21 May 2012 20:40, Stephen Frostsfr...@snowman.net wrote:
This is important. I like the idea of breaking down the barriers
between databases to allow it to be an option for one backend to
access tables in multiple databases. The current mechanism
On May 22, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 22 May 2012 06:50, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Currently, the planner keeps paths that appear to win on the grounds of
either cheapest startup cost or cheapest total cost. It suddenly struck
me that in many simple cases (viz, those
On 22 May 2012 12:05, José Luis Tallón jltal...@nosys.es wrote:
IMVHO: s/database/schema/g does resolve many of the problems that you were
referring to... and 'dblink' should solve the rest, right?
Please, feel free to point out what I am (most probably) not considering --
not experienced
Thanks for your comments. They clarify a lot.
But I still don't realize how can we distinguish IS_LCPRV2 and IS_LC2?
Isn't it possible for them to produce same pg_wchar?
If LB is in 0x90 - 0x99 range, then they are LC2.
If LB is in 0xf0 - 0xff range, then they are LCPRV2.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA
On 22 May 2012 12:12, PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig
postg...@cybertec.at wrote:
On May 22, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 22 May 2012 06:50, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Currently, the planner keeps paths that appear to win on the grounds of
either cheapest startup cost or
On May22, 2012, at 11:46 , Simon Riggs wrote:
* Ability to have a Role that can only access one Database
* Allow user info to be dumped with a database, to make a db
completely self-consistent
These two could be achieved by having database-local roles I think.
* Allow databases to be
On 22 May 2012 12:35, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
* Allow users to access tables in 1 database easily, with appropriate
rights.
That one I'm very sceptical about. In the long run, I think we want better
separation of databases, not less, and this requirement carries a huge risk
of
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
* Allow users to access tables in 1 database easily, with appropriate
rights.
That one I'm very sceptical about. In the long run, I think we want better
separation of databases, not less, and this requirement carries a huge
Hi,
ErrorResponse message from backend has some field type codes include:
S
Severity: the field contents are ERROR, FATAL, or PANIC (in an
error message), or WARNING, NOTICE, DEBUG, INFO, or LOG (in a
notice message), or a localized translation of one of
these. Always present.
C
On 22/05/12 13:24, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 22 May 2012 12:05, José Luis Tallónjltal...@nosys.es wrote:
IMVHO: s/database/schema/g does resolve many of the problems that you were
referring to... and 'dblink' should solve the rest, right?
Please, feel free to point out what I am (most probably)
On 22/05/12 13:47, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 22 May 2012 12:35, Florian Pflugf...@phlo.org wrote:
* Allow users to access tables in1 database easily, with appropriate rights.
That one I'm very sceptical about. In the long run, I think we want better
separation of databases, not less, and this
On May22, 2012, at 13:47 , Simon Riggs wrote:
On 22 May 2012 12:35, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
* Allow users to access tables in 1 database easily, with appropriate
rights.
That one I'm very sceptical about. In the long run, I think we want better
separation of databases, not less,
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:50 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Currently, the planner keeps paths that appear to win on the grounds of
either cheapest startup cost or cheapest total cost. It suddenly struck
me that in many simple cases (viz, those with no LIMIT, EXISTS, cursor
fast-start
On 05/22/2012 07:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Florian Pflugf...@phlo.org wrote:
* Allow users to access tables in1 database easily, with appropriate rights.
That one I'm very sceptical about. In the long run, I think we want better
separation of databases, not
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 4:52 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Based upon all you've said, I'd suggest that we make a new kind of
fork, in a separate file for this, .meta. But we also optimise the VM
and FSM in the way you suggest so that we can replace .vm and .fsm
with just .meta
* Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
* Ability to have a Role that can only access one Database
Alright, I'd like to think about this one specifically and solicit
feedback on the idea that we keep the existing shared role tables but
add on additional tables for per-database roles.
In
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
That seems to be leaving aside the fact that we don't currently have any
notion of how to allow FDWs to write the foreign tables.
What is more, isn't the postgres FDW about talking to any postgres source?
If so, does
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:18 AM, chinnaobi chinna...@gmail.com wrote:
I do base backup only first time on standby when it is going to be
replicated. when ever primary goes down, standby becomes primary and
primary becomes standby when primary comes up. When primary becomes standby
I am
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Prakash Itnal prakash...@gmail.com wrote:
Recently we faced an issue with postgres server where it is throwing error:
ERROR: catalog is missing 2 attribute(s) for relid 16584
CONTEXT: automatic analyze of table DBRNW.public.act_wsta
I checked in the
Simon Riggs wrote:
On 21 May 2012 20:40, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
This is important. I like the idea of breaking down the barriers
between databases to allow it to be an option for one backend to
access tables in multiple databases.
So collecting a few requirements from
On 22 May 2012 14:04, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
What would the semantics of that look like though? Which is preferred
when you do a 'grant select' or 'grant role'? Or do we just disallow
overlaps between per-DB roles and global roles? If we don't allow
duplicates, I suspect a
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
I have checked the code and logic according to which usage counter is
increased when the buffer is pinned.
Fixed, thanks for the report.
Another Doubt : Why in function BufferAlloc, it needs to hold the
BufFreelistLock
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
here is patch with enhancing ErrorData structure. Now constraints
errors and RI uses these fields
Please add this to https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Joachim Wieland j...@mcknight.de wrote:
If it matters, I have not promoted the master with a trigger file but
restarted it after deleting recovery.conf.
Hmm. I think that if you do it this way, the minimum recovery point
won't be respected, which could leave
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Mind you, I think this whole area of the code needs some reengineering
for better performance, but I'm not sure this is the right place to
start. What I think is really bad is that we're forcing every
BufferAlloc() to iterate over buffers checking
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Should we go down the easy way and just reject connections when the flag is
mismatching between the client and the server (trivial to do - see
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Mind you, I think this whole area of the code needs some reengineering
for better performance, but I'm not sure this is the right place to
start. What I think is really bad is that
Thom Brown t...@linux.com writes:
Conflicts would occur where localrolename matches an existing local
role name within the same database, or a global role name, but not a
local role name within another database. The problem with this,
however, is that creating global roles would need conflict
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
On 22 May 2012 14:04, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
What would the semantics of that look like though? Which is preferred
when you do a 'grant select' or 'grant role'? Or do we just disallow
overlaps between per-DB
* Thom Brown (t...@linux.com) wrote:
Conflicts would occur where localrolename matches an existing local
role name within the same database, or a global role name, but not a
local role name within another database. The problem with this,
however, is that creating global roles would need
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:11:02PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to
git.
Concerning Have psql \copy use libpq's SendQuery(), SendQuery() is a
psql-internal
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Well, keep in mind that that action is not merely there to obtain a
victim buffer; it is also maintaining the global LRU state (by
decrementing the usage counts of buffers it passes
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
I found this in contrib/sepgsql/expected/label.out:
SECURITY LABEL ON COLUMN t2
IS 'system_u:object_r:sepgsql_ro_table_t:s0'; -- be failed
ERROR: improper relation name (too
Am 22.05.2012 15:27, schrieb Albe Laurenz:
If you need different applications to routinely access each other's
tables, why not assign them to different schemas in one database?
The use case in my mind for accessing more databases is when you want to
access stuff different languages.
You only
Susanne Ebrecht susa...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
The use case in my mind for accessing more databases is when you want to
access stuff different languages.
You only can set encoding / LC_Collate per database not per schema.
So for different languages you might need different databases to do
On May22, 2012, at 16:09 , Tom Lane wrote:
Thom Brown t...@linux.com writes:
Conflicts would occur where localrolename matches an existing local
role name within the same database, or a global role name, but not a
local role name within another database. The problem with this,
however, is
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The idea would be to have a background process (like bgwriter)
maintain the global LRU state and push candidate buffers onto the
freelist.
Amit was trying to convince me of the same idea at PGCon, but I don't
buy it.
Am 22.05.2012 17:42, schrieb Tom Lane:
Encoding yes, but since 9.1 we have pretty fine-grained control of
collation. So I think this argument is a lot weaker than it used
to be. It would only really apply if you have one of the corner
cases where utf8 doesn't work for you.
Yeah it got better
On 22 May 2012 16:57, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
On May22, 2012, at 16:09 , Tom Lane wrote:
Thom Brown t...@linux.com writes:
Conflicts would occur where localrolename matches an existing local
role name within the same database, or a global role name, but not a
local role name within
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Susanne Ebrecht
susa...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Usually you want to set the collation once per language schema. E.g. schema
russian gets Russian collation and schema British gets British collation and
so on.
CREATE SCHEMA foo LC_COLLATE bar isn't supported so
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
My own thoughts about this had pointed in the direction of getting rid
of the central freelist entirely, instead letting each backend run its
own independent clock sweep as needed.
On May22, 2012, at 18:00 , Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
Am 22.05.2012 17:42, schrieb Tom Lane:
Encoding yes, but since 9.1 we have pretty fine-grained control of
collation. So I think this argument is a lot weaker than it used
to be. It would only really apply if you have one of the corner
cases
Dear Robert,
Thank you very much for the reply.
You mean when the primary which is going to switch its role to standby might
not have sent all the WAL records to the standby and If it is switched to
standby it has more WAL records than the standby which is now serves as
primary. Is it ??
It
Thom Brown t...@linux.com writes:
On 22 May 2012 16:57, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
Maybe we could simply make all global role's OIDs even, and all local ones
odd, or something like that.
Wouldn't that instantly make all previous versions of database
clusters un-upgradable?
IIRC,
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
With respect to the control logic for the background writer, one idea
I had was to get rid of the idea that the background writer's job is
to write in advance of the strategy point. Instead, every time the
clock sweep passes
On May22, 2012, at 18:03 , Thom Brown wrote:
On 22 May 2012 16:57, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
On May22, 2012, at 16:09 , Tom Lane wrote:
Thom Brown t...@linux.com writes:
Conflicts would occur where localrolename matches an existing local
role name within the same database, or a
On May 13, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
It seems like maybe we could work around this by remembering the
contents of the pending list throughout the scan. Every time we hit a
TID while scanning the main index, we check whether we already
returned it from the pending list; if so, we
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
For vaguely real life, take your example of pgbench -i -s200 -F 50,
and I have 2Gig RAM, which seems to be the same as you do.
With select only
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
If we're going to throw our current algorithm over wholesale, I'd
rather use some approach that has been demonstrated to work well in
other systems. Buffer eviction is a problem that's been around since
the 1970s, and our algorithm is just about that
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:28 PM, David E. Wheeler
da...@justatheory.com wrote:
On May 13, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
It seems like maybe we could work around this by remembering the
contents of the pending list throughout the scan. Every time we hit a
TID while scanning the main
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:28 PM, David E. Wheeler
da...@justatheory.com wrote:
On May 13, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
It seems like maybe we could work around this by remembering the
contents of the pending list throughout the scan. Every
On 22 May 2012 13:52, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems pretty clear to me that making pg_upgrade responsible for
emptying block zero is a non-starter. But I don't think that's a
reason to throw out the design; I think it's a problem we can work
around.
I like your design
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 05:53:55PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Hackers,
There's a lot of great information in the postgres logs. While we
eventually want to get more sophisticated about providing users with
status and history information, for 9.3 it would be really nice to
just offer the
1. Ability to have a Role that can only access one Database
2. Allow user info to be dumped with a database, to make a db
completely self-consistent
3. Allow databases to be transportable
4. Allow users to access tables in 1 database easily, with appropriate
rights.
The last
Now that there are index only scans, there is a use case for having a
composite index which has the primary key or a unique key as the
prefix column(s) but with extra columns after that. Currently you
would also need another index with exactly the primary/unique key,
which seems like a waste of
On 22 May 2012 14:05, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
That seems to be leaving aside the fact that we don't currently have any
notion of how to allow FDWs to write the foreign tables.
What is more, isn't the
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
If we're going to throw our current algorithm over wholesale, I'd
rather use some approach that has been demonstrated to work well in
other systems. Buffer eviction is a problem
Stephen,
Which is preferred
when you do a 'grant select' or 'grant role'?
The local role is preferred, the same way we allow objects in the local
schema to overshadow objects in the global schema.
Or do we just disallow
overlaps between per-DB roles and global roles? If we don't allow
On 22 May 2012 18:18, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
1. Ability to have a Role that can only access one Database
2. Allow user info to be dumped with a database, to make a db
completely self-consistent
3. Allow databases to be transportable
4. Allow users to access tables in 1
If I have a customer with 1 database per user, how do they run a query
against 100 user tables? It would require 100 connections to the
database. Doing that would require roughly x100 the planning time and
x100 the connection delay. Larger SQL statements pass their results
between executor
On 22 May 2012 18:24, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Now that there are index only scans, there is a use case for having a
composite index which has the primary key or a unique key as the
prefix column(s) but with extra columns after that. Currently you
would also need another index
Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com writes:
Now that there are index only scans, there is a use case for having a
composite index which has the primary key or a unique key as the
prefix column(s) but with extra columns after that. Currently you
would also need another index with exactly the
On 22 May 2012 18:35, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
If I have a customer with 1 database per user, how do they run a query
against 100 user tables? It would require 100 connections to the
database. Doing that would require roughly x100 the planning time and
x100 the connection delay.
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Ack, part from the bit about OIDs no longer being unique. That might
be an upgrade issue but its obviously something we wouldn't allow if
we did that.
And how exactly are you going to disallow that? We currently enforce
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 22 May 2012 18:35, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
If I have a customer with 1 database per user, how do they run a query
against 100 user tables? It would require 100 connections to the
database. Doing that
On 22 May 2012 12:59, Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org wrote:
Also I wonder why conflict with recovery generates same error code
as serialization error. For me it seems not very consistent
choice. IMO, we should assign different error code for at least brings
totally different effect to
Why is it OK to allow somebody to access multiple schema in one query,
but not multiple databases? Are you arguing that schemas are also
broken?
Because the purpose of a database is to be a Catalog, i.e. an isolated
container, which is not the purpose of schemas. To the extent to which
we
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com writes:
Now that there are index only scans, there is a use case for having a
composite index which has the primary key or a unique key as the
prefix column(s) but with extra columns after that.
On May 22, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
It seems probably workable given that we expect the pending list to be
of fairly constrained size. However, the commit message referenced
upthread also muttered darkly about GIN's partial match logic not working
in amgettuple. I do not recall the
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Antonin Houska
antonin.hou...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
following this short discussion
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4f5aa202.9020...@gmail.com
I gave it one more try and hacked the optimizer so that function can become
an inner relation in NL join,
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com writes:
Now that there are index only scans, there is a use case for having a
composite index which has the primary key or a unique key as the
prefix column(s) but with extra columns after
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 22 May 2012 18:24, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Now that there are index only scans, there is a use case for having a
composite index which has the primary key or a unique key as the
prefix column(s) but
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
I'm not arguing that we don't have users who would like interdatabase
queries, especially when they port applications from MySQL or MSSQL. We
have a lot of such users. However, we *also* have a lot of users who
would like
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Joel Jacobson j...@trustly.com wrote:
If one want to reuse the splitting to files-code of the directory
format, maybe the existing option -F d could be tweaked to output in
both a a machine-readable format (current way), and also a
human-friendly tree of files
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote:
The local role is preferred, the same way we allow objects in the local
schema to overshadow objects in the global schema.
I would think we'd want the exact opposite. I don't want my global
'postgres' user to be overwritten by some local one that the
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Totally agreed. We're not the first people to think of this, either:
CLOCK and GLOCK have been extensively studied and found to be almost
as good as LRU in selecting good victim pages, but with less
contention. That's
On 22 May 2012 18:56, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
I'm not arguing that we don't have users who would like interdatabase
queries, especially when they port applications from MySQL or MSSQL. We
have a lot of such users.
Lots and lots, yes.
However, we *also* have a lot of users who
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 05:30:27PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I will make the adjustments outlined below as soon as I can.
Done and committed.
---
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:37:52AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On
On May22, 2012, at 22:35 , Stephen Frost wrote:
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote:
The local role is preferred, the same way we allow objects in the local
schema to overshadow objects in the global schema.
I would think we'd want the exact opposite. I don't want my global
'postgres'
On 22 May 2012 19:01, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com writes:
Now that there are index only scans, there is a use case for having a
composite index which has the primary key or a unique
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:22:58PM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
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?
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:49:25PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 16.05.2012 22:38, Jeff Janes wrote:
For item:
Improve COPY performance by adding tuples to the heap in batches
(Heikki Linnakangas)
I think we should point out that the batching only applies for COPY
into unindexed
On 22 May 2012 18:41, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
It'd be better to work on index-organized tables
My earlier analysis showed that IOTs are essentially the same thing as
block-level indexes, referred to as GITs by Heikki. (Robert referred
to these as Lossy Indexes recently, which was not
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:22:58PM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Improve GiST box and point index performance by producing better trees
with
less memory allocation overhead (Alexander Korotkov, Heikki Linnakangas,
The issue with not allowing global spaces to overlap local ones is that
we'd have to check every local list when creating a global account;
that doesn't seem very easy to do. On the flip side, allowing
duplicates between global and local would remove the need to check local
lists when
That's only true if you try to satisfy both goals at once, which I'm
not suggesting. So I believe that proposition to be false.
Oh, ok. Per your original email and follow-up arguments, you seemed to
be doing just that.
An alternative idea -- and one which could be deployed a lot faster --
I described the problem with possibly localized S filed of
ErrorResponse(and NoticeResponse) in Frontend/Backend protocol.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-05/msg00912.php
So I would like to propose a solution for this (for 9.3): add new
field to ErrorResponse and NoticeResponse.
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote:
The local role is preferred, the same way we allow objects in the local
schema to overshadow objects in the global schema.
I would think we'd want the exact opposite. I don't
Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org writes:
I described the problem with possibly localized S filed of
ErrorResponse(and NoticeResponse) in Frontend/Backend protocol.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-05/msg00912.php
So I would like to propose a solution for this (for 9.3): add
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
Is there a reason why the current directory format could not be
adjusted to become more human-readable friendly for mechanical
reasons? I realize there is a backwards compatibility problem, but it
may be better than
This seems like a rather expensive solution to a problem that I'm not
really convinced is real. Why should a client program care about the
severity level to a greater extent than whether the message is
ErrorResponse or NoticeResponse? In particular, I'm entirely
unconvinced by your claim
Joel Jacobson j...@trustly.com writes:
If the entire function identity arguments would be included in the filename,
two dumps of the same schema in two different databases
would be guaranteed to produce the same dump.
This would render some very long filenames for functions with many
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 01:38:06AM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:22:58PM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Improve GiST box and point index performance by producing better trees
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Thus, not implausibly, causing the dump to fail entirely on some
filesystems. Case sensitivity, encoding issues, and special characters
in names (eg slashes or backslashes, depending on platform) are
additional pain points.
On the topic on fixing pg_dump to dump in a predictable order, can
someone please update me on the current state of the problem?
I've read though pg_dump_sort.c, and note objects are first sorted in
type/name-based ordering, then topologically sorted in a way which
minimize unnecessary
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
