At 2013-01-16 02:07:29 -0500, t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed, we've totally lost control of
the CF process.
What can we do to get it back on track?
I know various people (myself included) have been trying to keep CF3
moving, e.g. sending followup mail, adjusting patch
Hi Peter,
Idea is really very good.
About the patch:
Patch looks good to me.
Applied cleanly on latest sources. make / make install / make check /
initdb everything works well.
Tested with few options and it is working well.
However, I think you need to add this in docs. Letting people know
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
There are still 34 items needing attention in CF3. I suggest that, if
you have some spare time, your help would be very much appreciated
there. The commitfest that started on
2013/1/15 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
On 12/18/12 12:09 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
There are some system administration functions that have hardcoded
superuser checks, specifically:
pg_reload_conf
pg_rotate_logfile
pg_read_file
pg_read_file_all
pg_read_binary_file
On 07.01.2013 16:23, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
Since my other patch against pg_basebackup is now committed,
this patch doesn't apply cleanly, patch rejects 2 hunks.
The fixed up patch is attached.
Now that I look at this a high-level perspective, why are we only
worried about timeouts in the
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:01:04PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 15 January 2013 22:55, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Why is this being discussed now?
It is for 9.4 and will take months. I didn't think there
On 2013-01-16 02:07:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
There are still 34 items needing attention in CF3. I suggest that, if
you have some spare time, your help would be very much appreciated
there. The commitfest that started on Jan 15th has 65
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen a...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
At 2013-01-16 02:07:29 -0500, t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed, we've totally lost control of
the CF process.
What can we do to get it back on track?
Not sure. One start might be to actually
On 16 January 2013 08:21, Abhijit Menon-Sen a...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
At 2013-01-16 02:07:29 -0500, t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed, we've totally lost control of
the CF process.
What can we do to get it back on track?
Totally lost control is an overstatement. The
Hi,
On 2013-01-16 01:28:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
It's a compiler bug.
Gah. Not again. Not that I am surprised, but still.
icc 11.1 apparently thinks that this loop in doPickSplit:
(Why does it think it needs to prefetch an array it's only going to
write into? Is IA64's cache hardware
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 16 January 2013 08:21, Abhijit Menon-Sen a...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
At 2013-01-16 02:07:29 -0500, t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed, we've totally lost control of
the CF process.
What can we do
I just realized that my patch that turned XLogRecPtr into a uint64
changed the on-disk format of GiST indexes, because the NSN field in the
page header is an XLogRecPtr. Oops. Fortunately that's easy to fix. I
avoided the same issue with LSNs by continuing to use the old two-field
struct in
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:07 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
There are still 34 items needing attention in CF3. I suggest that, if
you have some spare time, your help would be very much appreciated
there. The commitfest that started on
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:01:04PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 15 January 2013 22:55, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Why is this being
At 2013-01-16 13:08:27 +0100, mag...@hagander.net wrote:
One start might be to actually start having commitfest managers.
(I'm skipping over this point, since Craig's nomination as CF manager is
being discussed elsewhere in this thread.)
As in it technical works, but it's better to do it in a
* Claudio Freire (klaussfre...@gmail.com) wrote:
Well, there's the fault in your logic. It won't be as linear.
I really don't see how this has become so difficult to communicate.
It doesn't have to be linear.
We're currently doing massive amounts of parallel processing by hand
using
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed, we've totally lost control of the CF
process.
I concur.
Quite aside from the lack of progress on closing CF3, major
hackers who should know better are submitting significant new feature
patches now, despite our agreement
* Daniel Farina (dan...@heroku.com) wrote:
I have been skimming the commitfest application, and unlike some of
the previous commitfests a huge number of patches have had review at
some point in time, but probably need more...so looking for the red
Nobody in the 'reviewers' column probably
2013-01-16 14:18 keltezéssel, Abhijit Menon-Sen írta:
At 2013-01-16 13:08:27 +0100, mag...@hagander.net wrote:
One start might be to actually start having commitfest managers.
(I'm skipping over this point, since Craig's nomination as CF manager is
being discussed elsewhere in this thread.)
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I made some changes to this, and I think the result (attached) is
cleaner overall.
Now, this review is pretty much unfinished as far as I am concerned;
mainly I've been trying to figure out how it all works and
Simon Riggs escribió:
On 16 January 2013 08:21, Abhijit Menon-Sen a...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
At 2013-01-16 02:07:29 -0500, t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed, we've totally lost control of
the CF process.
What can we do to get it back on track?
Totally lost
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
I would like to nominate Craig Ringer to be independent CF mgr for Jan2013
CF.
Seconded. I particularly like the fact that Craig is not already a PG
developer, so he's not going to be working on his own patches.
So when can he start? :D
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Pavan Deolasee pavan.deola...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.comwrote:
I have updated the commitfest submission to link to the correct patch
email.
Thanks Gurjeet.
I initially thought that this
On 01/15/2013 11:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:28:18PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Claudio, Stephen,
It really seems like the areas where we could get the most bang for the
buck
At 2013-01-16 09:02:45 -0500, sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
So when can he start? :D
Also, what should he start with? CF3 as it stands today, or CF4 with all
of the pending patches moved from CF3, immense though the result may be?
I slightly prefer the latter, so that we're all on the same page
On 01/16/2013 10:02 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
I would like to nominate Craig Ringer to be independent CF mgr for
Jan2013 CF.
Seconded. I particularly like the fact that Craig is not already a PG
developer, so he's not going to be working on
On 01/16/2013 08:12 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
I would like to nominate Craig Ringer to be independent CF mgr for
Jan2013 CF.
I'm happy to step up and help out.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services
--
Sent via
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 02:16:01PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
A side issue that arose: libecpg_compat is linked with libpq, but
doesn't seem to use it. This was added many years ago in
cd75f94dafd43358305811b7576ad75d889097e3, but it doesn't appear to be
required anymore. Needs some
* Abhijit Menon-Sen (a...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
Also, what should he start with? CF3 as it stands today, or CF4 with all
of the pending patches moved from CF3, immense though the result may be?
I slightly prefer the latter, so that we're all on the same page when it
comes to seeing what
Hi,
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-01-16 01:28:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
It's a compiler bug.
Thanks for investigating. But I'm not sure there is any way other way for
me other than switching to gcc, because intel stopped providing their
IA64 version of compilers free of
On 2013-01-16 14:41:47 +, Sergey Koposov wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-01-16 01:28:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
It's a compiler bug.
Thanks for investigating. But I'm not sure there is any way other way for me
other than switching to gcc, because intel
On 01/16/2013 09:41 AM, Sergey Koposov wrote:
So unless somebody suggest otherwise, i'm going to switch to gcc on
this buildfarm.
If you switch compiler it should be a new buildfarm animal. (That just
means re-registering so you get a new name/secret pair.) We have
provision for upgrading
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Andres Freund wrote:
So unless somebody suggest otherwise, i'm going to switch to gcc on this
buildfarm.
What about switching to -O1 of 11.1?
I don't know. It is up to -hackers to decide. I think that icc on ia64
have shown bugginess time after time. But if you think
On 16 January 2013 03:47, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Simon,
* Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
Attached patch passes through further information about the lock wait,
so we can display the following message instead
LOG: process %d acquired %s on transaction %u on
On 1/15/13 6:36 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
I just think that the price of fixing a single Assert() that hasn't
changed in years where the variable isn't likely to ever get signed is
acceptable.
Well, once you get past that one change you proposed, you will also find
pg_standby.c: In function
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Claudio Freire (klaussfre...@gmail.com) wrote:
Well, there's the fault in your logic. It won't be as linear.
I really don't see how this has become so difficult to communicate.
It doesn't have to be linear.
We're
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
This patch adds sepgsql the feature of name qualified creation label.
Background, on creation of a certain database object, sepgsql assigns
a default security label according to the security policy that has a set of
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
After a couple of iterations, some performance enhancements to the json
parser and lexer have ended up with a net performance improvement over git
tip. On our test rig, the json parse test runs at just over 13s per
Sergey Koposov kopo...@ast.cam.ac.uk writes:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Andres Freund wrote:
What about switching to -O1 of 11.1?
I don't know. It is up to -hackers to decide. I think that icc on ia64
have shown bugginess time after time. But if you think that buildfarm
with icc 11.1 -O1 carry
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:08:27PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen a...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
At 2013-01-16 02:07:29 -0500, t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed, we've totally lost control of
the CF process.
What can
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 08:42:29AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Daniel Farina (dan...@heroku.com) wrote:
I have been skimming the commitfest application, and unlike some of
the previous commitfests a huge number of patches have had review at
some point in time, but probably need more...so
On 15.01.2013 20:22, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Now that a standby server can follow timeline switches through streaming
replication, we should do teach pg_receivexlog to do the same. Patch
attached.
I made one change
* Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
A couple quick notes regarding the patch- what does
GetXactLockTableRelid really provide..?
The ability to access a static variable in a different module. It
doesn't provide anything other than that,
It isn't actually necessary for that
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
I've done a quick review of the current patch:
Thanks for the commit!
As Alexander pointed out upthread, another infrastructure patch is required
Kevin Grittner kgri...@mail.com writes:
I've been struggling with two areas:
- pg_dump sorting for MVs which depend on other MVs
Surely that should fall out automatically given that the dependency is
properly expressed in pg_depend?
If you mean you're trying to get it to cope with circular
Tom Lane wrote:
Kevin Grittner kgri...@mail.com writes:
I've been struggling with two areas:
- pg_dump sorting for MVs which depend on other MVs
Surely that should fall out automatically given that the
dependency is properly expressed in pg_depend?
If you mean you're trying to get it to
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:08 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 15.01.2013 20:22, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Now that a standby server can follow timeline switches through streaming
On 16 January 2013 05:40, Kevin Grittner kgri...@mail.com wrote:
Here is a new version of the patch, with most issues discussed in
previous posts fixed.
I've been struggling with two areas:
- pg_dump sorting for MVs which depend on other MVs
- proper handling of the relisvalid flag for
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:37:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:28:18PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:48:29AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian escribió:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:28:18PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Claudio, Stephen,
It really seems like
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 08:11:06AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
We kind of do - when in a CF we should do reviewing of existing
patches, when outside a CF we should do discussions and work on new
features. It's on http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest. It
doesn't specifically say do this
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 09:05:39AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 01/15/2013 11:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:28:18PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Claudio, Stephen,
It really
Thom Brown wrote:
Some weirdness:
postgres=# CREATE VIEW v_test2 AS SELECT 1 moo;
CREATE VIEW
postgres=# CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW mv_test2 AS SELECT moo, 2*moo FROM
v_test2 UNION ALL SELECT moo, 3*moo FROM v_test2;
SELECT 2
postgres=# \d+ mv_test2
Materialized view public.mv_test2
On 16 January 2013 17:20, Kevin Grittner kgri...@mail.com wrote:
Thom Brown wrote:
Some weirdness:
postgres=# CREATE VIEW v_test2 AS SELECT 1 moo;
CREATE VIEW
postgres=# CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW mv_test2 AS SELECT moo, 2*moo FROM
v_test2 UNION ALL SELECT moo, 3*moo FROM v_test2;
On 01/16/2013 12:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 09:05:39AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 01/15/2013 11:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:28:18PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
I would like to nominate Craig Ringer to be independent CF mgr for Jan2013 CF.
+1, although I'll suggest that we should have *two* CF managers for this
one to keep the workload manageable.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
I assume you know I was the most frequent committer of other people's
patches for years before the commit-fests started, so I thought I would
move on to other things.
Why would you think that? Given the volume of incoming patches, we need
more committers than ever.
--
Josh Berkus
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 09:50:07AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
I assume you know I was the most frequent committer of other people's
patches for years before the commit-fests started, so I thought I would
move on to other things.
Why would you think that? Given the volume of incoming
Well, I usually do stuff no one wants to do, and it seems we have people
doing this. Also, I had my hand in deciding lots of things when I was
committing all those patches in the past, so I thought others should get
the chance.
Well, we clearly don't have *enough* people committing patches.
Kevin Grittner kgri...@mail.com writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Surely that should fall out automatically given that the
dependency is properly expressed in pg_depend?
The *definitions* sort properly, but what I'm trying to do is
define them WITH NO DATA and load data after all the COPY
statements
Do we really need unlogged MVs in the first iteration? Seems like
that's adding a whole bunch of new issues, when you have quite enough
already without that.
While I think there is strong user demand for unlogged MVs, if we can
get MVs without unlogged ones for 9.3, I say go for that. We'll
Andres Freund wrote:
The way xlog reading was done up to now made it impossible to use that
nontrivial code outside of xlog.c although it is useful for different purposes
like debugging wal (xlogdump) and decoding wal back into logical changes.
I have pushed this part after some more
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
* Abhijit Menon-Sen (a...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
Also, what should he start with? CF3 as it stands today, or CF4 with all
of the pending patches moved from CF3, immense though the result may be?
I slightly prefer the latter, so that we're all on the
If we decide to fold CF3 and CF4 together, either we lose that step
(which would make me sad, it seems like a good idea) or we need to
figure another way to work it into the process.
Well, we should have the triage discussion ASAP then. We were really
supposed to have it a week ago.
--
On 1/15/13 2:53 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
You're right, to clarify, for *file_fdw*, which is a backend-only
operation, the popen patch is great (thought I made that clear before).
I would think that if we get writable FDWs, you would want file_fdw to
go through zlib so that it can write directly
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
I am not sure how a COPY could be easily parallelized, but I supposed it
could be done as part of the 1GB segment feature. People have
complained that COPY is CPU-bound, so it might be very interesting to
see if we could offload some of that parsing
* Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote:
On 1/15/13 2:53 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
You're right, to clarify, for *file_fdw*, which is a backend-only
operation, the popen patch is great (thought I made that clear before).
I would think that if we get writable FDWs, you would want file_fdw
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
If we decide to fold CF3 and CF4 together, either we lose that step
(which would make me sad, it seems like a good idea) or we need to
figure another way to work it into the process.
Well, we should have the triage discussion ASAP then. We were really
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 03:13:50PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I think a realistic answer might be to admit that we've slipped quite a
bit. Set the end date of CF3 to perhaps end of January, do triage the
first week of February, and then start CF4 after that, about three or
four weeks later than
2013/1/16 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
I am not sure how a COPY could be easily parallelized, but I supposed it
could be done as part of the 1GB segment feature. People have
complained that COPY is CPU-bound, so it might be very interesting to
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I think this points to a couple of problems: this patch isn't
well-enough thought out, and it's got several features jammed into a
single patch. This should really be split up into several patches and
each one submitted separately.
Ok. Now I want to
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:06:51PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2013/1/16 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
I am not sure how a COPY could be easily parallelized, but I supposed it
could be done as part of the 1GB segment feature. People have
2013/1/16 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
Wiki updated:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Parallel_Query_Execution
Could we add CTE to that opportunities list? I think that some kind of
queries in CTE queries could be easilly parallelized.
[]s
--
Dickson S. Guedes
mail/xmpp:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Ok. Now I want to talk about our process a little. That's a 2 paragraphs
diversion, after that it's getting back to technical matters.
There's a difference between it's not the way I would have done it and
the
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 07:57:01PM -0200, Dickson S. Guedes wrote:
2013/1/16 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
Wiki updated:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Parallel_Query_Execution
Could we add CTE to that opportunities list? I think that some kind of
queries in CTE queries
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
I would like to nominate Craig Ringer to be independent CF mgr for Jan2013
CF.
+1, although I'll suggest that we should have *two* CF managers for this
one to keep the workload manageable.
That has never worked before,
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
I do like the idea of a generalized answer which just runs a
user-provided command on the server but that's always going to require
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Christopher Browne cbbro...@gmail.com wrote:
That points towards a fix that involves having a set of non-arbitrary commands
that we allow plain users to use.
Hmm. There's an interesting thought...
How about having a pg_filters table in pg_catalog which
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
Thanks for elaborating the reason why .partial suffix should be kept.
I agree that keeping the .partial suffix would be safer.
+1 to both points. So +2 I guess :)
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise,
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Christopher Browne cbbro...@gmail.com
wrote:
That points towards a fix that involves having a set of non-arbitrary
commands
that we allow plain users to use.
Hmm. There's an
Hi,
I'm looking into this as a committer. It seems that this is the
newest patch and the reviewer(Pavel) stated that it is ready for
commit. However, I noticed that this patch adds a Linux/UNIX only
feature(not available on Windows). So I would like to ask cores if
this is ok or not.
--
Tatsuo
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
There's a difference between it's not the way I would have done it and
the author didn't think about what he's doing. That's also the reason
why it's very hard to justify sending a polished enough patch as a non
commiter.
And then this patch is
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I find the argument that this supports compression-over-the-wire to be
quite weak, because COPY is only one form of bulk data transfer, and
one that a lot of applications don't ever use. If we think we need to
support
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 06:19:09PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
But presumably this would transparently compress at one end and
decompress at the other end, which is again a somewhat different use
case. To get compressed output on the client side, you
2013/1/15 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Casey Allen Shobe ca...@shobe.info writes:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
However, it seems to me that this behavior is actually wrong for our
purposes, as it represents a too-literal reading of the spec. The SQL
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 06:19:09PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I find the argument that this supports compression-over-the-wire to be
quite weak, because COPY is only one form of bulk data transfer, and
one that a lot of
On 01/16/2013 05:59 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking into this as a committer. It seems that this is the
newest patch and the reviewer(Pavel) stated that it is ready for
commit. However, I noticed that this patch adds a Linux/UNIX only
feature(not available on Windows). So I would like
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
What was discussed at the last dev meeting was assigning a committer to
each large patch to start with, which would reduce the risk of the
goalposts moving that way. It seems to me that Robert's at least
unofficially taken
I'm looking into this as a committer. It seems that this is the
newest patch and the reviewer(Pavel) stated that it is ready for
commit. However, I noticed that this patch adds a Linux/UNIX only
feature(not available on Windows). So I would like to ask cores if
this is ok or not.
I
On 01/16/2013 06:48 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
I'm looking into this as a committer. It seems that this is the
newest patch and the reviewer(Pavel) stated that it is ready for
commit. However, I noticed that this patch adds a Linux/UNIX only
feature(not available on Windows). So I would like to
On Tuesday, January 15, 2013, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Gavin Flower (gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz javascript:;) wrote:
How about being aware of multiple spindles - so if the requested
data covers multiple spindles, then data could be extracted in
parallel. This may, or may not, involve
On Tuesday, January 15, 2013, Gavin Flower wrote:
On 16/01/13 11:14, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I mentioned last year that I wanted to start working on parallelism:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Parallel_Query_Execution
Years ago I added thread-safety to libpq. Recently I added two
It seems instr_time.h on Windows simply does not provide current
timestamp. From pgbench.c:
/*
* if transaction finished, record the time it took in the log
*/
if (logfile commands[st-state + 1] == NULL)
{
On Tuesday, January 15, 2013, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Jeff Janes
jeff.ja...@gmail.comjavascript:;
wrote:
Do you propose back-patching this? You could argue that this is a bug in
9.1 and 9.2. Before that, they generate deprecation warnings, but do
not
On 01/16/2013 08:05 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
It seems instr_time.h on Windows simply does not provide current
timestamp. From pgbench.c:
/*
* if transaction finished, record the time it took in the log
*/
if (logfile
On 16 January 2013 19:28, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
* Abhijit Menon-Sen (a...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
Also, what should he start with? CF3 as it stands today, or CF4 with all
of the pending patches moved from CF3, immense though the result may
This might be way more than we want to do, but there is an article
that describes some techniques for doing what seems to be missing
(AIUI):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163996.aspx
Even this would be doable, I'm afraid it may not fit in 9.3 if we
think about the current
if the PD_ALL_VISIBLE patch is committed first
then it will make reviewing this patch easier. Regardless, the second
patch to be committed will need to be rebased on top of the first.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
replace-tli-with-checksums-20130116.patch.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
On 16 January 2013 16:12, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
A couple quick notes regarding the patch- what does
GetXactLockTableRelid really provide..?
The ability to access a static variable in a different module. It
doesn't provide
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm...
How about being aware of multiple spindles - so if the requested data
covers multiple spindles, then data could be extracted in parallel. This
may, or may not, involve multiple I/O channels?
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
