Dean,
* Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Here's an updated version --- I missed the necessary update to the
> check_option column of information_schema.views.
Thanks! This is really looking quite good, but it's a bit late and I'm
going on vacation tomorrow, so I didn't quite want
On Friday, June 21, 2013 11:43 PM Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On 6/7/13 12:14 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I will change the patch as
On Friday, June 21, 2013 11:48 PM Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Auto.conf- 1 Vote (Josh)
>> System.auto.conf - 1 Vote (Josh)
>> Postgresql.auto.conf - 2 Votes (Zoltan, Amit)
>> Persistent.auto.conf - 0 Vote
>> generated_by_server.conf -
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hm. Looking at how this is currently used - I am afraid it's not
> correct... the reason RelationGetIndexList() returns a copy is that
> cache invalidations will throw away that list. And you do index_open()
> while iterating over it which w
On 06/22/2013 03:30 AM, ian link wrote:
> Forgive my ignorance, but I don't entirely understand the problem. What
> does '+' and '-' refer to exactly?
Consider "RANGE 4.5 PRECEDING'.
You need to be able to test whether, for the current row 'b', any given
row 'a' is within the range (b - 4.5) < a
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The traditional theory has been that that would be less robust, not
>> more so. Child backends are (mostly) able to carry out queries whether
>> or not the postmaster is around.
> I think that's the Tom Lane theory. The
El 21/06/13 23:47, Jaime Casanova escribió:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Martín Marqués wrote:
When ever I try to see the patch from this commit it never loads:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1129
Some problem there? I can see other patches, from other commits.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Martín Marqués wrote:
> When ever I try to see the patch from this commit it never loads:
>
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1129
>
> Some problem there? I can see other patches, from other commits.
>
Yes, the URL is wrong. right URL is
htt
From: "Robert Haas"
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
More generally, what do we think the point is of sending SIGQUIT
rather than SIGKILL in the first place, and why does that point cease
to be valid after 5 seconds?
Well, mostly it's about telling the c
From: "Robert Haas"
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
I will go with 5 seconds, then.
I'm uncomfortable with this whole concept, and particularly with such
a short timeout. On a very busy system, things can take a LOT longer
than they think we should; it can take 30 se
When ever I try to see the patch from this commit it never loads:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1129
Some problem there? I can see other patches, from other commits.
--
Martín Marquéshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Train
OK let's finalize this patch first. I'll try to send an updated patch
within today.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-06-21 20:54:34 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Andres Freund
>> wrote:
>> > On 2013-06-19 09:55:24 +0900, Michae
On 20/06/2013 03:25, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Claudio Freire (klaussfre...@gmail.com) wrote:
[...]
>>
>> The only bottleneck here, is WAL archiving. This assumes you can
>> afford
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Andres Freund escribió:
>>> What we could do to improve the robustness a bit - at least on linux -
>>> is to prctl(PR_SET_PDEATHSIG, SIGKILL) which would cause children to be
>>> killed if the postmaster goes away...
>
>
On 06/21/2013 02:33 PM, desmodemone wrote:
> Hi all,
> I see a strange behavior ( for me ) on 9.2 (but seems the same on
> 9.1 and 9.3) of the optimizer on query like that :
>
Matteo, I just posted this on -performance. See Tom's answer.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http:
Hello all
I've been examining PostgreSQL to gain a greater understanding
of RDBMS. (Thanks for a nice, very educational system!)
In the process I've been looking into a few problems and the
complications of this patch appeared relatively uninvolved, so I
tried to look for a solution.
I found the
On 21 June 2013 19:04, Thom Brown wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The unaccent extension is great, especially with its customisability, but
> it's not always easy to recommend. I witnessed a customer using no less
> than 56 nested replace functions in an SQL function. I looked to see how
> much this can be mi
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Andres Freund escribió:
>> What we could do to improve the robustness a bit - at least on linux -
>> is to prctl(PR_SET_PDEATHSIG, SIGKILL) which would cause children to be
>> killed if the postmaster goes away...
> This is an interesting idea (even if it has no relations
Hi all,
I see a strange behavior ( for me ) on 9.2 (but seems the same on
9.1 and 9.3) of the optimizer on query like that :
/* create a table with random data and 2 rows */
create table test1 ( id int not null primary key, state1 int not null
default 0, state2 int not null default
The case where I wanted "routine" shutdown immediate (and I'm not sure I
ever actually got it) was when we were using IBM HA/CMP, where I wanted a
"terminate with a fair bit of prejudice".
If we know we want to "switch right away now", immediate seemed pretty much
right. I was fine with interrupt
Andres Freund escribió:
> On 2013-06-20 22:36:45 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > If we leave postmaster running after SIGKILLing its children, the only
> > thing we can do is have it continue to SIGKILL processes continuously
> > every few seconds until they die (or just sit around doing nothing
>> Who can be point of contact from the community to arrange shipping, etc?
>
> I can be.
And I'll handle the tax credit once the servers are received.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make c
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> More generally, what do we think the point is of sending SIGQUIT
>> rather than SIGKILL in the first place, and why does that point cease
>> to be valid after 5 seconds?
>
> Well, mostly it's about telling the client we're
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:48:35AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:34:52AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> > On 15 June 2013 10:22, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> > > There seem to be 2 separate directions that this could go, which
> > > really meet different requirements:
> > >
> > >
On 19.06.2013 11:56, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Heikki Linnakangas<
hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
On 19.06.2013 11:30, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Heikki Linnakangas<
hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
On 18.06.2013 23:59,
Forgive my ignorance, but I don't entirely understand the problem. What
does '+' and '-' refer to exactly?
Thanks!
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:20 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
>> On 06/21/2013 05:32 PM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>>
>> > I also
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 6/21/13 1:45 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>
>> On 06/21/2013 09:48 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>>>
>>> We've got some recently decommissioned servers and Enova is willing to
>>> donate 2 of them to the community.
>>>
>>> There's nothing terribly spectacu
On 6/21/13 1:45 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 06/21/2013 09:48 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
We've got some recently decommissioned servers and Enova is willing to
donate 2 of them to the community.
There's nothing terribly spectacular about the servers except for
memory. We have one 512G server available a
Robert Haas writes:
> More generally, what do we think the point is of sending SIGQUIT
> rather than SIGKILL in the first place, and why does that point cease
> to be valid after 5 seconds?
Well, mostly it's about telling the client we're committing hara-kiri.
Without that, there's no very good r
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
> On 18.06.2013 21:17, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
>> Hi Heikki,
>>
>> I am getting conflicts applying version 22 of this patch to 9.4dev. Could
>> you rebase?
>>
>
> Here you go.
I think I'm getting an undetected de
On 06/21/2013 09:48 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
We've got some recently decommissioned servers and Enova is willing to
donate 2 of them to the community.
There's nothing terribly spectacular about the servers except for
memory. We have one 512G server available and the other would be either
192G or 9
On 06/21/2013 09:48 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> We've got some recently decommissioned servers and Enova is willing to
> donate 2 of them to the community.
>
> There's nothing terribly spectacular about the servers except for
> memory. We have one 512G server available and the other would be either
> 1
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Auto.conf- 1 Vote (Josh)
> System.auto.conf - 1 Vote (Josh)
> Postgresql.auto.conf - 2 Votes (Zoltan, Amit)
> Persistent.auto.conf - 0 Vote
> generated_by_server.conf - 1 Vote (Peter E)
> System.conf - 1 Vote (Magn
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On 6/7/13 12:14 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I will change the patch as per below syntax if there are no objections:
>>>
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> Regardless of what syntax we settle on, we should also make sure that
>> the conflict is intrinsic to the grammar and can't be factored out, as
>> Tom suggested upthread. It's not obvious to me what the actual
>> ambiguity is here. If you've
Hi,
The unaccent extension is great, especially with its customisability, but
it's not always easy to recommend. I witnessed a customer using no less
than 56 nested replace functions in an SQL function. I looked to see how
much this can be mitigated by unaccent. It turns out that not all the
ch
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:34:52AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 15 June 2013 10:22, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> > There seem to be 2 separate directions that this could go, which
> > really meet different requirements:
> >
> > 1). Produce an unordered sum for SQL to compare 2 tables regardless of
> >
Cedric,
> See this example:
> # create table foo (i int, t timestamptz);
> # insert into foo select n, now() from generate_series(1,10) g(n);
> # select i, first_value(i) over (order by t desc) from foo;
> # select i, first_value(i) over (order by t desc ROWS between 0 PRECEDING and
> UNBOUNDED F
Cédric Villemain-2 wrote
> And also, first_value is a *window* function, not a simple aggregate
> function...
Per the documentation any aggregate function can be used with a WINDOW
declaration. The logical question is why are window aggregates special so
that the reverse cannot be true? In othe
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 6/7/13 12:14 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> I will change the patch as per below syntax if there are no objections:
>>>
>>> ALTER SYSTEM SET configuration_parameter {TO | =} {value,
I stand corrected... we don't have a 512G server available. We do have plenty
of 192G and 96G servers though if 2 of those would be of use.
Sorry for the noise.
On 6/21/13 11:48 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
We've got some recently decommissioned servers and Enova is willing to donate 2
of them to the
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> We've got some recently decommissioned servers and Enova is willing to
> donate 2 of them to the community.
>
> There's nothing terribly spectacular about the servers except for memory. We
> have one 512G server available and the other would be
We've got some recently decommissioned servers and Enova is willing to donate 2
of them to the community.
There's nothing terribly spectacular about the servers except for memory. We
have one 512G server available and the other would be either 192G or 96G. I
know that folks already have access
Le vendredi 21 juin 2013 03:32:33, Josh Berkus a écrit :
> Hackers,
>
> So, I can create a custom aggregate "first" and do this:
>
> SELECT first(val order by ts desc) ...
>
> And I can do this:
>
> SELECT first_value(val) OVER (order by ts desc)
>
> ... but I can't do this:
>
> SELECT first_
On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 09:21 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> The other question here is - do we actually have the grammar right?
> As in, is this actually the syntax we're supposed to be implementing?
> It looks different from what's shown here, where the IGNORE NULLS is
> inside the function's parenthe
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> I will go with 5 seconds, then.
I'm uncomfortable with this whole concept, and particularly with such
a short timeout. On a very busy system, things can take a LOT longer
than they think we should; it can take 30 seconds or more just to g
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
> - pageinspect provies several functions for debugging purpose.
> - pg_freespace provies a view for monitoring purpose.
> - pgstattuple provies several functions for collecting
> specific table/index statistics.
I think we should be car
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 6/7/13 12:14 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> I will change the patch as per below syntax if there are no objections:
>>
>> ALTER SYSTEM SET configuration_parameter {TO | =} {value, | 'value'};
>
> I do like using ALTER SYSTEM in general, but
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 04:12:32PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-06-21 09:51:05 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 09:20:21AM +, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> > Even if you could skip it, queries with expensive
> > constant expressions would notice the performance loss. The
2013/6/21 Andres Freund :
> On 2013-06-21 09:51:05 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 09:20:21AM +, Albe Laurenz wrote:
>> > Andres Freund wrote:
>> > > Yes, I think it's pretty clearly a bug - Tom doesn't seem think so
>> > > though. If we can agree it is, the fix outlined ove
On 2013-06-21 09:51:05 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> That being said, if we discover a simple-enough fix that performs well, we may
> as well incorporate it.
What about passing another parameter down eval_const_expressions_mutator
(which is static, so changing the API isn't a problem) that basically
On 2013-06-21 09:51:05 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 09:20:21AM +, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> > Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Yes, I think it's pretty clearly a bug - Tom doesn't seem think so
> > > though. If we can agree it is, the fix outlined over on -bugs seems to
> > > be eas
From: "Alvaro Herrera"
Actually, I think it would be cleaner to have a new state in pmState,
namely PM_IMMED_SHUTDOWN which is entered when we send SIGQUIT. When
we're in this state, postmaster is only waiting for the timeout to
expire; and when it does, it sends SIGKILL and exits. Pretty much
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 09:20:21AM +, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
> > Yes, I think it's pretty clearly a bug - Tom doesn't seem think so
> > though. If we can agree it is, the fix outlined over on -bugs seems to
> > be easily enough implemented...
If you refer to this:
On Tue,
On 2013-06-21 20:54:34 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2013-06-19 09:55:24 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> >> @@ -1529,12 +1570,13 @@ finish_heap_swap(Oid OIDOldHeap, Oid OIDNewHeap,
> >> > Is it actually possible to get here with mul
On Fri, June 21, 2013 15:11, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
>
>> On Fri, June 21, 2013 05:25, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > "Erik Rijkers" writes:
>> >> In a 112 MB test table (containing random generated text) with a trgm
>> index (gin_trgm_ops), I consis
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> number of transactions actually processed: 301921
> Just a thought before spending too much time on this subtle issue.
>
> The patch worked reasonnably for 301900 transactions in your above run, and
> the few last ones, less than the number
From: "Alvaro Herrera"
MauMau escribió:
One concern is that umount would fail in such a situation because
postgres has some open files on the filesystem, which is on the
shared disk in case of traditional HA cluster.
See my reply to Noah. If postmaster stays around, would this be any
differ
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 10:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think the question is whether this feature is really worth adding
>> new reserved keywords for. I have a hard time saying we shouldn't
>> support something that's part of the SQL stand
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> On Fri, June 21, 2013 05:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Erik Rijkers" writes:
> >> In a 112 MB test table (containing random generated text) with a trgm
> index (gin_trgm_ops), I consistently get these
> >> timings:
> >> select txt from azjunk6 wh
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-06-19 09:55:24 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> >> /* Clean up. */
>> >> heap_freetuple(reltup1);
>> >> @@ -1529,12 +1570,13 @@ finish_heap_swap(Oid OIDOldHeap, Oid OIDNewHeap,
>> >> if (OidIsValid(newrel->rd
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:20 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 06/21/2013 05:32 PM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>
> > I also later found that we are missing not only notion of '+' or '-',
> > but also notion of 'zero value' in our catalog. Per spec, RANGE BETWEEN
> > needs to detect ERROR if the offset val
> From: Hitoshi Harada [mailto:umi.tan...@gmail.com]
> I tried several ways but I couldn't find big problems. Small typo:
> s/rejunk/resjunk/
Thank you for the review. Attached is an updated version of the patch.
Thanks,
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
unused-targets-20130621.pat
On Fri, June 21, 2013 05:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Erik Rijkers" writes:
>> In a 112 MB test table (containing random generated text) with a trgm index
>> (gin_trgm_ops), I consistently get these
>> timings:
>> select txt from azjunk6 where txt ~ '^abcd';
>>130 ms
>> select txt from azjunk6
>> w
On 06/21/2013 05:32 PM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> I also later found that we are missing not only notion of '+' or '-',
> but also notion of 'zero value' in our catalog. Per spec, RANGE BETWEEN
> needs to detect ERROR if the offset value is negative, but it is not
> always easy if you think about i
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > From: Hitoshi Harada [mailto:umi.tan...@gmail.com]
>
> > I guess the patch works fine, but what I'm saying is it might be limited
> to
> > small use cases. Another instance of this that I can think of is ORDER
> BY
> clause
> > of window
2013/6/21 Andres Freund :
> Hi,
>
>
> On 2013-06-21 08:16:22 +, Albe Laurenz wrote:
>> I want to draw attention to this thread on -general:
>> camq5dgq4sujpbht2-9xlapasvknul2-bb0cpyci2fp+pfsf...@mail.gmail.com
>
> There's also a bug reported for it:
> #8237: e1uovmc-0007ft...@wrigleys.postgresq
Hi,
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> This is like shared_preload_libraries except that it takes effect at
> backend start and can be changed without a full postmaster restart. It
> is like local_preload_libraries except that it is still only settable by
> a superuser. This can be a better way to load
On 2013-06-21 02:43:23 -0700, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >
> >> Attached is a patch for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY for
> >> 9.4 CF1. The goal of this patch i
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
>> Attached is a patch for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY for
>> 9.4 CF1. The goal of this patch is to allow a refresh without
>> interfering with concurrent reads, usi
On 2013-06-20 22:36:45 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Noah Misch escribió:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:33:25PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > MauMau escribi?:
> > > > Here, "reliable" means that the database server is certainly shut
> > > > down when pg_ctl returns, not telling a lie that "I
On 21 June 2013 05:47, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
>> wrote:
>> > Magnus Hagander writes:
>> >>> Should we have a way of previewing changes that would be applied if we
>> >>> reloaded/resta
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
> I've missed this feature more than once, and am curious about whether
> any more recent changes may have made it cleaner to tackle this, or
> whether consensus can be formed on adding the new entries to btree's
> opclass to avoid the undesira
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Attached is a patch for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY for
> 9.4 CF1. The goal of this patch is to allow a refresh without
> interfering with concurrent reads, using transactional semantics.
>
I spent a few hours to review the pat
Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-06-21 08:16:22 +, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> > I want to draw attention to this thread on -general:
> > camq5dgq4sujpbht2-9xlapasvknul2-bb0cpyci2fp+pfsf...@mail.gmail.com
>
> There's also a bug reported for it:
> #8237: e1uovmc-0007ft...@wrigleys.postgresql.org
>
> >
Hi,
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> I think the suggested emacs configuration snippets in
> src/tools/editors/emacs.samples no longer represent current best
> practices. I have come up with some newer things that I'd like to
> propose for review.
Thanks for doing that!
> First, I propose adding a .
On 2013-06-19 09:55:24 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Please find an updated patch. The regression test rules has been
> updated, and all the comments are addressed.
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2013-06-18 10:53:25 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
On 21 June 2013 06:16, David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:10:25AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> David Fetter escribió:
>> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:59:27PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>>
>> > > In my testing of sub-queries in the FILTER clause (an extension to the
>> > > spec), I
On 21 June 2013 05:01, David Fetter wrote:
> What tests do you think should be there that aren't?
>
I think I expected to see more tests related to some of the specific
code changes, such as
CREATE TABLE t AS SELECT * FROM generate_series(1,10) t(x);
-- Should fail (filter can't be used for non
Hi,
On 2013-06-21 08:16:22 +, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> I want to draw attention to this thread on -general:
> camq5dgq4sujpbht2-9xlapasvknul2-bb0cpyci2fp+pfsf...@mail.gmail.com
There's also a bug reported for it:
#8237: e1uovmc-0007ft...@wrigleys.postgresql.org
> Would you concur that this is
2013/6/21 Albe Laurenz
> Dmitriy Igrishin wrote:
> > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 5:09 PM
> > To: PostgreSQL Hackers
> > Subject: [HACKERS] Frontend/backend protocol improvements proposal
> (request).
> >
> > Hackers,
> >
> > While developing a C++ client library for Postgres I felt lack of extr
Hi,
I took results of my separate patches and original PG.
* Result of DBT-2
| TPS 90%tileAverage Maximum
--
original_0.7 | 3474.62 18.348328 5.73936.977713
original_1.0 | 3469.03 18.637865 5.84241.754421
f
I want to draw attention to this thread on -general:
camq5dgq4sujpbht2-9xlapasvknul2-bb0cpyci2fp+pfsf...@mail.gmail.com
Would you concur that this is a bug?
The fine manual says about CASE:
If the condition's result is true, the value of the CASE expression
is the result that follows the con
Dmitriy Igrishin wrote:
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 5:09 PM
> To: PostgreSQL Hackers
> Subject: [HACKERS] Frontend/backend protocol improvements proposal (request).
>
> Hackers,
>
> While developing a C++ client library for Postgres I felt lack of extra
> information in command tags in the Co
On 21 June 2013 08:02, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 21 June 2013 06:54, David Fetter wrote:
>>> For example "SELECT * FROM pg_ls_dir('.') WITH ORDINALITY AS file"
>>
>> The spec is pretty specific about the "all or none" nature of naming
>> in the AS clause...unless we can figure out a way of getting
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:40 PM, MauMau wrote:
>
> Here, "reliable" means that the database server is certainly shut
>>> down when pg_ctl returns, not telling a lie that "I shut down the
>>> server processes for you, so you do not have to be worried that some
>>> postgres process might still rema
On 21 June 2013 06:54, David Fetter wrote:
>> For example "SELECT * FROM pg_ls_dir('.') WITH ORDINALITY AS file"
>
> The spec is pretty specific about the "all or none" nature of naming
> in the AS clause...unless we can figure out a way of getting around it
> somehow.
We already support and docu
87 matches
Mail list logo
