On 7 December 2012 23:51, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Jeff,
* Jeff Davis (pg...@j-davis.com) wrote:
Most of your concerns seem to be related to freezing, and I'm mostly
interested in HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED optimizations. So I think we're
talking past each other.
My concern is
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 7 December 2012 12:37, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
- There is still a problem with toast indexes. If the concurrent reindex
of
a toast index fails for a reason or another, pg_relation will
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
On 2012-12-07 12:01:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 7 December 2012 12:37, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
- There is still a problem with toast indexes. If
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Phil Sorber p...@omniti.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Michael Paquier
OK. Let's do that and then mark this patch as ready for committer.
Thanks,
Those changes have been made.
Cool. Thanks.
Something I was just thinking about while testing
On 2012-12-08 21:24:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
On 2012-12-07 12:01:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 7 December 2012 12:37, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Phil Sorber p...@omniti.com wrote:
Something I was just thinking about while testing this again. I
mentioned the issue before about someone meaning to put -v and putting
-V
We're entering the last planned week of the CF. Apart from a 72-hour period
in mid-November, some CF has remained in-progress continuously for the last
176 days. With 64 out of the 82 current patches unresolved, we're on track to
again see no gap between CF 2012-11 and CF 2013-01. The process
On 2012-12-06 23:38:59 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 6.12.2012 05:47, Shigeru Hanada wrote:
I've done a simple benchmark on my laptop with 2GB shared buffers, it's
attached in the drop-test.py (it's a bit messy, but it works).
[snip]
With those parameters, I got these numbers on the
On 2012-10-18 22:40:15 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
2012-10-18 20:08 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Boszormenyi Zoltan escribió:
this is the latest one, fixing a bug in the accounting
of per-statement lock timeout handling and tweaking
some
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2012-12-08 21:24:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
So whatever the method used for swapping: relfilenode switch or relname
switch, you need to modify the pg_class entry of the old and new indexes.
The point is that with a relname switch the
Hi,
On 2012-11-21 14:52:18 -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
So what's next here? Do you want to work on these issue some more?
Or does Jeff?
This has been rewritten enough that I no longer feel much ownership of it.
On 8.12.2012 15:26, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2012-12-06 23:38:59 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
I've re-run the tests with the current patch on my home workstation, and
the results are these (again 10k tables, dropped either one-by-one or in
batches of 100).
1) unpatched
dropping one-by-one:
On 2012-12-08 09:40:43 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2012-12-08 21:24:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
So whatever the method used for swapping: relfilenode switch or relname
switch, you need to modify the pg_class entry of the old and new indexes.
Hi,
On 2012-11-02 12:54:33 +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 15:09 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Jeff, do you think we need more review of this patch?
In the patch, it refers to rd_options without
On 2012-11-05 22:10:50 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 11:12 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
What's going on with this patch? I haven't seen any activity in a
while. Should I just move this to the next commitfest?
Sorry, I dropped the ball here. I will still review it, whether
Hi Alexander,
On 2012-11-04 11:41:48 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 12:47 +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Right version of patch is attached.
* In bounds_adjacent, there's no reason to flip the labels back.
* Comment should indicate more explicitly that bounds_adjacent is
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
The issue I raised above is just about keeping the pg_depend entries
pointing to something valid... And not changing the indexes pg_class.oid
seems to be the easiest solution for that.
Yeah, we would have to update pg_depend, pg_constraint, maybe
Continuing to work on this ... I found multiple things I didn't like
about the permission-field update code. Attached are some heavily
commented extracts from the code as I've changed it. Does anybody
object to either the code or the objectives given in the comments?
Hi Tomas,
On 2012-11-27 14:55:59 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
attached is a v4 of the patch. There are not many changes, mostly some
simple tidying up, except for handling the Windows.
After a quick look I am not sure what all the talk about windows is
about? instr_time.h seems to provide all
Hi,
On 2012-10-15 17:13:10 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/13/2012 10:46 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 09/17/2012 10:01 PM, Joachim Wieland wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Joachim Wieland j...@mcknight.de
wrote:
Attached is a rebased version of the parallel pg_dump patch.
On 8 December 2012 15:21, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Continuing to work on this ... I found multiple things I didn't like
about the permission-field update code. Attached are some heavily
commented extracts from the code as I've changed it. Does anybody
object to either the code or
On 2012-11-26 21:45:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I gather that this is supposed to be back-patched to all supported
branches.
FWIW, I don't like that patch any better than Robert does. It seems
as likely to do harm as good. If there are places
On 8.12.2012 15:49, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 8.12.2012 15:26, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2012-12-06 23:38:59 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
I've re-run the tests with the current patch on my home workstation, and
the results are these (again 10k tables, dropped either one-by-one or in
batches of 100).
On 12/08/2012 11:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2012-10-15 17:13:10 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/13/2012 10:46 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 09/17/2012 10:01 PM, Joachim Wieland wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Joachim Wieland j...@mcknight.de
wrote:
Attached is a rebased
On 8.12.2012 16:33, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi Tomas,
On 2012-11-27 14:55:59 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
attached is a v4 of the patch. There are not many changes, mostly some
simple tidying up, except for handling the Windows.
After a quick look I am not sure what all the talk about windows
Hi Noah,
On 2012-12-08 09:06:01 -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
We're entering the last planned week of the CF. Apart from a 72-hour period
in mid-November, some CF has remained in-progress continuously for the last
176 days. With 64 out of the 82 current patches unresolved, we're on track to
2012-12-08 15:30 keltezéssel, Andres Freund írta:
On 2012-10-18 22:40:15 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
2012-10-18 20:08 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Boszormenyi Zoltan escribió:
this is the latest one, fixing a bug in the accounting
of
Boszormenyi Zoltan z...@cybertec.at writes:
Thanks. I just tried the patch on current GIT HEAD and
gives some offset warnings but no rejects. Also, it compiles
without warnings and still works as it should.
Should I post a new patch that applies cleanly?
Offsets are not a problem --- if you
Hello all,
I have some needs that seem to support changing Postgres slightly to
give user programs a lot more power over how to process logging output
that neither the log collector nor the syslog output can well-satisfy
as-is.
I am approaching this from the angle of increasing power by exposing
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
* A contrib, pg_logcollectdup. This contrib lets one forward logs to
a named pipe specified in postgresql.conf.
I have revised this part in the attached patch. It's some error
handling in a case of user error, and the
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 11:13:30AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 12/08/2012 11:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2012-10-15 17:13:10 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/13/2012 10:46 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 09/17/2012 10:01 PM, Joachim Wieland wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:05
Simon,
* Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
Visibility of pre-hinted data is an issue and because of that we
previously agreed that it would be allowed only when explicitly
requested by the user, which has been implemented as the FREEZE option
on COPY. This then makes it identical to
On 12/6/2012 12:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Jan Wieck janwi...@yahoo.com wrote:
That sort of dynamic approach would indeed be interesting. But I fear that
it is going to be complex at best. The amount of time spent in scanning
heavily depends on the visibility
Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com writes:
Attached is a rebased patch using new OIDs.
Applied after a fair amount of hacking.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
PGCon 2013 will be on 23-24 May 2013 at University of Ottawa.
This year, we are planning to have an un-conference day around PGCon.
This is currently being scheduled. More information on the
un-conference will be available within a few weeks.
NOTE: the un-conference day content will be set on
Hi,
attached is a v5 of this patch. Details below:
On 8.12.2012 16:33, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi Tomas,
On 2012-11-27 14:55:59 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
attached is a v4 of the patch. There are not many changes, mostly some
simple tidying up, except for handling the Windows.
After a
On 20.11.2012 08:22, Jeevan Chalke wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz
mailto:t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
On 19.11.2012 11:59, Jeevan Chalke wrote:
Hi,
I gone through the discussion for this patch and here is my review:
The
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 11:13:30AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I am working on it when I get a chance, but keep getting hammered.
I'd love somebody else to review it too.
FYI, I will be posting pg_upgrade performance
On Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:44 AM Tom Lane wrote:
Amit kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com writes:
On Friday, December 07, 2012 7:43 PM Muhammad Usama wrote:
Although I am thinking why are you disallowing the absolute path of file.
Any particular reason?
The reason to disallow absolute path
2012/12/7 Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com:
On 5 December 2012 11:16, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
* TRUNCATE works, and allows you to remove all rows of a table, even
ones you can't see to run a DELETE on. Er...
It was my oversight. My preference is to rewrite TRUNCATE command
2012/12/7 Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com:
On 5 December 2012 11:16, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
Oracle defaults to putting VPD on all event types: INSERT, UPDATE,
DELETE, SELECT. ISTM we should be doing the same, not just say we can
add an INSERT trigger if you want.
Adding a
41 matches
Mail list logo
