On 05/28/2013 04:05 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 03:39:10PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 05/28/2013 03:36 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
The other option would be to do it on query execute but that doesn't
seem as efficient as it would have to be parsed each time.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 05/28/2013 07:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-05-26 16:58:58 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
I was talking this over with Jeff on the plane, and we wanted to be
clear on your goals here: are you looking to eliminate the
On 2013-05-28 09:21:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I have attempted to implement this. Trouble is, we're out of infomask
bits. Using an infomask2 bit might work but we don't have many of
them left either, so it's worth casting about a bit for a better
solution. Andres proposed using
Shared responsibility is no-one's responsibility. If we are to have
multiple CF managers, I think it would be good to have one who's mainly
responsible, and the second one's job is to nag the first manager if
ernothing happens, and quickly take over if necessary. Ie. a hot standby
On 05/28/2013 04:04 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 05/11/2013 03:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Not really. We could potentially fix it by extending the wire
protocol to allow the server to respond to the client's startup
On 05/29/2013 05:11 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Sure, it is on the TODO list:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo#.2Fcontrib.2Fpg_upgrade
I can only get a link to pg_upgrade from there, so look two sections
below that for Wire Protocol Changes.
Thanks.
The direct link is
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
On 05/28/2013 02:18 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I would like to see the ability to define if a query is read only at
the protocol level, so that load balances that speak libpq can know
what to do with the query
On 05/28/2013 04:05 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 03:39:10PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 05/28/2013 03:36 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
The other option would be to do it on query execute but that doesn't
seem as efficient as it would have to be parsed each time.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I only suggested MOVED_IN/OFF because I didn't remember
HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED|HEAP_XMIN_INVALID was still free ;). So, unless that
combination could have been produced in the past in a way I couldn't
find so far, I am
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Guessing around I looked and noticed the following problematic pattern:
1) A: wants to do an update, doesn't have enough freespace
2) A: extends the relation on the filesystem level (RelationGetBufferForTuple)
3) A:
Hello Postgres gurus,
I'm writing a thin clustering layer on top of Postgres using the
synchronous replication feature. The goal is to enable HA and survive
permanent loss of a single node. Using an external coordinator
(Zookeeper), one of the nodes is elected as the primary. The primary node
On 2013-05-28 21:36:17 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Guessing around I looked and noticed the following problematic pattern:
1) A: wants to do an update, doesn't have enough freespace
2) A: extends the relation on the
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 5/28/13 11:12 AM, Jon Nelson wrote:
It opens a new file, fallocates 16MB, calls fdatasync.
Outside of the run for performance testing, I think it would be good at this
point to validate that there is really a 16MB
On 2013-05-28 21:26:49 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I only suggested MOVED_IN/OFF because I didn't remember
HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED|HEAP_XMIN_INVALID was still free ;). So, unless that
combination could have been produced
On 5/28/13 10:00 PM, Jon Nelson wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 5/28/13 11:12 AM, Jon Nelson wrote:
It opens a new file, fallocates 16MB, calls fdatasync.
Outside of the run for performance testing, I think it would be good at this
point
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 03:05:57PM -0400, Ray Stell wrote:
However, if we pass these items into the scripts, we then force
these values to be used, even if the user wants to use a different
value. It is a balance between supplying defaults vs. requiring the
user to supply or change the
Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 03:06:13PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I would have each data segment be self-identifying, i.e. have a magic
number at the beginning of the file and the relation OID, some fork
identification and the segment number
On 05/28/2013 07:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Perhaps just documenting the behavior is all that is needed, but -U is
everywhere and I think that's a good thing.
[ moved to hacker ]
Wow, I never realized other tools used -U for user, instead of -u.
Should I change pg_upgrade to use -U for
101 - 118 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
