Hello
I try to play with different implementations of plpgsql deep checking.
The most important task of deep checking is creating plans for all
queries and expressions in function. The prerequisite for this task is
knowledge of data types of all variables. Record and row types is
break, but
In access/transam/xlog.c we give the OS buffer caching a hint that we
won't need a WAL file any time soon with
posix_fadvise(openLogFile, 0, 0, POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED);
before closing the WAL file, but only if we don't have walsenders.
That's reasonable because the walsender will reopen that
==24373== Source and destination overlap in strncpy(0x28b892f5, 0x28b892f5, 64)
==24373==at 0x402A8F2: strncpy (mc_replace_strmem.c:477)
==24373==by 0x7D563F: namestrcpy (name.c:221)
==24373==by 0x46DF31: TupleDescInitEntry (tupdesc.c:473)
==24373==by 0x889EC3:
On 02/16/2013 07:50 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Feb 16, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
To answer David's point, there is no point in having both
get(json,text)
get(json, variadic text[])
since the second can encompass the first, and having both would
Peter G is sitting near me and reminded me that this issue came up in the
past. Iirc the conclusion then is that we're calling memcpy where the
source and destination pointers are sometimes identical. Tom decided there
was really no realistic architecture where that wouldn't work. We're not
Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 09:53:14AM -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I agree that making the dump fail on this account is bad.
I would argue that this is an overstatement of the issue except for
restores that use the single-transaction switch and pg_upgrade
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Amit kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:49 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 04.02.2013 17:32, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Phil Sorber wrote:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Phil
On 2013-02-17 15:10:35 +, Greg Stark wrote:
Peter G is sitting near me and reminded me that this issue came up in the
past. Iirc the conclusion then is that we're calling memcpy where the
source and destination pointers are sometimes identical. Tom decided there
was really no realistic
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2013-02-17 15:10:35 +, Greg Stark wrote:
Peter G is sitting near me and reminded me that this issue came up in the
past. Iirc the conclusion then is that we're calling memcpy where the
source and destination pointers are sometimes identical.
2013-02-17 16:32 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2013-02-17 15:10:35 +, Greg Stark wrote:
Peter G is sitting near me and reminded me that this issue came up in the
past. Iirc the conclusion then is that we're calling memcpy where the
source and
Boszormenyi Zoltan z...@cybertec.at writes:
Then, why isn't memcpy() skipped if the source and dest are the same?
It would be a micro-optimization but a valid one.
No, it'd be more like a micro-pessimization, because the test would be
wasted effort in the vast majority of calls. The *only*
Shigeru Hanada shigeru.han...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
These don't seem to me like names that we ought to be
exposing at the SQL command level. Why not just schema, table,
column? Or perhaps schema_name, table_name, column_name if
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I propose extending the EXTERNAL varlenas to be able to point to memory
instead just to disk. It seem apt to use EXTERNAL for this as they
aren't stored in the normal heap tuple but somewhere else.
Unfortunately there
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
No, it'd be more like a micro-pessimization, because the test would be
wasted effort in the vast majority of calls. The *only* reason to do
this would be to shut up valgrind, and that seems annoying.
In terms of runtime I
On Feb 17, 2013, at 6:33 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
No, then we don't have a variadic version. You are going to have to accept
that we can't make one function name cover all of this.
Well, for me, I would rather specify an array than call a function with a
different name.
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us schrieb:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2013-02-17 15:10:35 +, Greg Stark wrote:
Peter G is sitting near me and reminded me that this issue came up
in the
past. Iirc the conclusion then is that we're calling memcpy where
the
source and
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us schrieb:
Boszormenyi Zoltan z...@cybertec.at writes:
Then, why isn't memcpy() skipped if the source and dest are the same?
It would be a micro-optimization but a valid one.
No, it'd be more like a micro-pessimization, because the test would be
wasted effort in the
On 17 February 2013 18:52, anara...@anarazel.de and...@anarazel.de wrote:
You already need a suppression file to use valgrind sensibly, its easy enough
to add it there. Perhaps we should add one to the tree?
Perhaps you should take the time to submit a proper Valgrind patch
first. The current
Peter Geoghegan peter.geoghega...@gmail.com schrieb:
On 17 February 2013 18:52, anara...@anarazel.de and...@anarazel.de
wrote:
You already need a suppression file to use valgrind sensibly, its
easy enough to add it there. Perhaps we should add one to the tree?
Perhaps you should take the time
On 2013-02-17 19:52:16 +, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 17 February 2013 19:39, anara...@anarazel.de and...@anarazel.de wrote:
What patch are you talking about? I have no knowledge about any pending
valgrind patches except one I made upstream apply to make pg inside
valgrind work on
On 17.2.2013 06:46, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tomas Vondra wrote:
I've been thinking about this (actually I had a really weird dream about
it this night) and I think it might work like this:
(1) check the timestamp of the global file - if it's too old, we need
to send an inquiry or wait a
On 16 February 2013 01:01, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Unless something else comes up in review or I get feedback to the
contrary I plan to deal with the above-mentioned issues and commit
this within a week or two.
At the moment it's not possible to rename a column without using
On 02/17/2013 01:19 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Feb 17, 2013, at 6:33 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
No, then we don't have a variadic version. You are going to have to accept that
we can't make one function name cover all of this.
Well, for me, I would rather specify an
On Thursday 14 February 2013, Manlio Perillo wrote:
Il 14/02/2013 14:06, Albe Laurenz ha scritto:
Manlio Perillo wrote:
Sorry for the question, but where can I find the libpq test suite?
I can not find it in the PostgreSQL sources; it seems that there are
only some examples, in
Hi,
On 02/15/2013 10:46 PM, Cédric Villemain wrote:
Hello,
I'm also interested in this topic.
I'm also interested in this topic and work on system-time temporal
extension. Here I wrote down design of my solution few months ago
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SQL2011Temporal. The
On Sunday, February 17, 2013 8:44 PM Phil Sorber wrote:
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Amit kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:49 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 04.02.2013 17:32, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Phil Sorber wrote:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:16
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 08:38 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
5) Open question
* I think so doc is not fully correct
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFj8pRBf6suKewDCiXiGy=NeYY_Ns9CAZemomvRYsAQ=upl...@mail.gmail.com
Fixed that and committed.
* syntax
when I try some variants I got not
27 matches
Mail list logo
