On 07/21/2013 10:01 PM, Миша Тюрин wrote:
hi, list. there are my proposal. i would like to tell about odirect in wal
sync in wal_level is higher than minimal. i think in my case when wal traffic
is up to 1gb per 2-3 minutes but discs hardware with 2gb bbu cache (or maybe
ssd under wal) -
On 07/22/2013 12:11 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
Dropping this barrier by installing an untrusted PL (or equally insecure
extensions), an attacker with superuser rights can trivially gain
root.
Could you elaborate ?
This is equivalent to claiming that any linux user can trivially gain root.
Hello, I'm very sory to take your time on this mess.
ul 2013 16:06:11 +0530, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote in
014201ce7bc6$f71eb950$e55c2bf0$@kap...@huawei.com
I understood your patch's algorithm, but still I have doubt in my mind that
if the next analyze can correct the estimates,
i tell about wal_level is higher than MINIMAL
wal_level != minimal
http://doxygen.postgresql.org/xlogdefs_8h_source.html
48 * Because O_DIRECT bypasses the kernel buffers, and because we never
49 * read those buffers except during crash recovery or if wal_level !=
minimal
hi, list.
On 07/22/2013 03:30 PM, Миша Тюрин wrote:
i tell about wal_level is higher than MINIMAL
OK, so you want to be able to force O_DIRECT for wal_level = archive ?
I guess that makes sense if you expect the archive_command to read the
file out of the RAID controller's write cache before it gets
On 07/19/2013 09:47 PM, tubadzin wrote:
Hi. I'm a little confused.
1.I have source code 9.2.4. version from
http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/source/
2.I want to add new alghoritm to
index nested loops join, merge join and hash join. I have Executor
catalog in src catalag containing
On 07/22/2013 12:17 PM, Quan Zongliang wrote:
Hi hackers,
I tried to improve performance when database is Chinese.
Under openSUSE, create index on table with 54996 rows
locale=C, 140ms
locale=zh_CN, 985ms
I think the function strcoll() of Linux is too slow.
So, I made a new utf8 to
(2013/07/19 22:48), Greg Smith wrote:
On 7/19/13 3:53 AM, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote:
Recently, a user who think system availability is important uses
synchronous replication cluster.
If your argument for why it's OK to ignore bounding crash recovery on the master
is that it's possible to failover
On 07/22/2013 03:54 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 07/22/2013 12:17 PM, Quan Zongliang wrote:
Hi hackers,
I tried to improve performance when database is Chinese.
Under openSUSE, create index on table with 54996 rows
locale=C, 140ms
locale=zh_CN, 985ms
I think the function strcoll() of Linux is
(2013/07/21 4:37), Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Mitsumasa-san, since you have the test rig ready, could you try the attached
patch please? It scans the buffer cache several times, writing out all the dirty
buffers for segment A first, then fsyncs it, then all dirty buffers for segment
B, and so on.
Hi
in void
BootStrapXLOG(void)
* to seed it other than the system clock value...) The upper half of
the
* uint64 value is just the tv_sec part, while the lower half is
the XOR
* of tv_sec and tv_usec. This is to ensure that we don't lose
uniqueness
*
Hi,
Would somebody object to making the rmgr's invo value #defines like:
/* XLOG info values for XLOG rmgr */
#define XLOG_CHECKPOINT_SHUTDOWN0x00
#define XLOG_CHECKPOINT_ONLINE 0x10
#define XLOG_NOOP 0x20
#define
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
So you can just do stuff like:
server.foo.grand_unified_config = value.
it looks good to me too. when server parse values which is written in
postgresql.conf, server handles those parameter as item list value.
after
On 7/22/13 3:54 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
It might be worth looking at gcc's strcoll() implementation. See if it
performs better when you use the latest gcc, and if not try to improve
gcc's strcoll() .
I think part of the problem is that we call strcoll for each comparison,
instead of doing
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:30:54AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Noah,
Attached patch just restores the old behavior. Would it be worth preserving
the ability to fix an index consistency problem with a REINDEX independent
from related heap consistency problems such as duplicate keys?
I
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Would somebody object to making the rmgr's invo value #defines like:
into enums?
I think that will create more problems than it fixes. For one thing,
the same field is used to store values that would need to be multiple
independent enum types; and
On 2013-07-22 08:53:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Would somebody object to making the rmgr's invo value #defines like:
into enums?
I think that will create more problems than it fixes. For one thing,
the same field is used to store values that
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Samrat Revagade
revagade.sam...@gmail.com wrote:
for example:
if i want to configure 2 servers then it will add 6 lines,for 3 -9, for 4-12
setting's for particular server will be:
considering the way of setting value to conf parameters : guc . value
Le lundi 22 juillet 2013 09:39:50, Craig Ringer a écrit :
On 07/22/2013 03:30 PM, Миша Тюрин wrote:
i tell about wal_level is higher than MINIMAL
OK, so you want to be able to force O_DIRECT for wal_level = archive ?
I guess that makes sense if you expect the archive_command to read
Greg Stark st...@mit.edu writes:
I do find the logic and variable names a bit confusing so I'm tempted
to add some comments based on my initial confusion. And I'm tempted to
add an ordinalityAttNum field to the executor node so we don't need to
make these odd scanslot means this unless we have
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-07-07 15:43:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
3b) Add catcache 'filter' that ensures the cache
So the more I look at this patch the fewer things I want to change in
it. I've several times thought I should make an improvement and then
realized I was really just making unnecessary tweaks that didn't
really make much difference.
It seems a shame that the node has to call the function and get
Attached is an update that I think sorts out all of the documentation
concerns. I broke this section into paragraphs now that it's getting so
long too.
The only code change is that this now labels the controversial lag here
average rate limit schedule lag. That way if someone wants to
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I haven't read this patch, but that comment scares the heck out of me.
Even if the patch isn't broken today, it will be tomorrow, if it's
making random changes like that in data structure semantics.
It's not making random
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
I think part of the problem is that we call strcoll for each comparison,
instead of doing strxfrm once for each datum and then just strcmp for
each comparison. That is effectively equivalent to what the proposal
Greg Smith wrote:
Thanks. I didn't look at the code, but while trying to read the docs:
+para
+ High rate limit schedule lag values, that is values not small with
+ respect to the actual transaction latency, indicate that something
is
+ amiss in the
Hello Greg,
Thanks for the improvement!
I have a small reservation about finish/end time schedule in the second
paragraph, or maybe there is something that I do not understand. There is
no schedule for finishing anything, only start times are scheduled, so I
wish the text could avoid
Hello Alvaro,
Thanks. I didn't look at the code, but while trying to read the docs:
+para
+ High rate limit schedule lag values, that is values not small with
+ respect to the actual transaction latency, indicate that something is
+ amiss in the throttling
Greg Stark said:
So the more I look at this patch the fewer things I want to change in
it. I've several times thought I should make an improvement and then
realized I was really just making unnecessary tweaks that didn't
really make much difference.
It's almost as though we actually thought
On 07/22/2013 12:49 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
I think part of the problem is that we call strcoll for each comparison,
instead of doing strxfrm once for each datum and then just strcmp for
each comparison. That is
Very minor update with V19 here, to reflect Alvaro's comments. The
tricky part now reads like this:
High rate limit schedule lag values, that is lag values that are large
compared to the actual transaction latency, indicate that something is
amiss in the throttling process. High schedule
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The git tree is at:
git://git.postgresql.org/git/users/andresfreund/postgres.git branch
xlog-decoding-rebasing-cf4
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 01:49:39PM -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
Very minor update with V19 here, to reflect Alvaro's comments. The
tricky part now reads like this:
High rate limit schedule lag values,
High values of the rate limit schedule lag measurement?
that is lag values that are large
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:46 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
This functionality was actually present in the original submission
for foreign tables. I ripped it out before commit because I didn't
think all of the interactions with other commands had been
adequately considered. But I
Hello,
While doing some tests, I observed that expression indexes can malfunction
if the underlying expression changes. For example, say I define a function
foo() as:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION foo(a integer) RETURNS integer AS $$
BEGIN
RETURN $1 + 1;
END;
$$ LANGUAGE plpgsql IMMUTABLE;
I
The v3 patch applies perfectly here now. Attached is a spreadsheet with
test results from two platforms, a Mac laptop and a Linux server. I
used systems with high disk speed because that seemed like a worst case
for this improvement. The actual improvement for shrinking WAL should
be even
Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch writes:
- per-installation (not even per-cluster) DSO availability
Not sure what the issue is, here, but I agree that should be possible.
For any extension where the new package version is shipping the same .so
file name, you can only have one module on the
On 2013-07-19 10:40:01 +0530, Hari Babu wrote:
On Friday, July 19, 2013 4:11 AM Greg Smith wrote:
On 7/9/13 12:09 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I think the first thing to verify is whether the results posted can be
validated in some other environment setup by another person.
The testcase
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all
I very often use a little bit adjusted psql system queries to
detection TOP N sized tables. I am thinking so it can be useful for
all users
I propose a few new commands
\dts [N|size] ... show N
On 7/22/13 12:58 PM, Amit kapila wrote:
As per discussion, updated patch contains following changes:
1. Regression tests for Alter System are removed
2. Parsed the auto file automatically after parsing postgresql.conf
3. Removed addition of include directive in postgresql.conf
4. Removed error
2013/7/22 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello all
I very often use a little bit adjusted psql system queries to
detection TOP N sized tables. I am thinking so it can be useful for
all users
I propose a
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello all
I very often use a little bit adjusted psql system queries to
detection TOP N sized tables. I am thinking so it can be useful
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I don't have a problem with getting rid of those, it's easy enough to
register them inside the worker and it's safe since we start with
blocked signals. I seem to remember some discussion about why they were
added
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello all
I very often use a little bit adjusted psql system
Greg Smith escribió:
On 7/22/13 12:58 PM, Amit kapila wrote:
As per discussion, updated patch contains following changes:
1. Regression tests for Alter System are removed
2. Parsed the auto file automatically after parsing postgresql.conf
3. Removed addition of include directive in
Tom Lane said:
I haven't read this patch, but that comment scares the heck out of me.
Even if the patch isn't broken today, it will be tomorrow, if it's
making random changes like that in data structure semantics.
Also, if you're confused, so will be everybody else who has to deal with
the
Dimitri,
On 07/22/2013 08:44 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
That's the trade-off we currently need to make to be able to ship with
the current security protections we're talking about.
Anything wrong with shipping postgis-1.5.so and postgis-2.0.so, as I we
for Debian?
Ok, here's the full worked
2013/7/22 Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello all
I very often use a little bit adjusted psql system queries to
detection TOP N
In
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cak_s-g3-fwveer1c0idvtz0745-7ryifi8whbzcnmsn+hwc...@mail.gmail.com
it's pointed out that commit 2ffa740b was a few bricks shy of a load,
because it failed to cope with the possibility of a joinaliasvars item
containing an implicit coercion. That's not too
On 07/22/2013 03:11 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2013/7/22 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
Rather than just continuing to add more imposible-to-remember syntax,
we really need a better design here.
do you have any tip?
I agree with Robert. My tip is this: when you're in a hole, the first
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I think we have consensus to back-patch the other API changes as well.
I'll work up a patch for that.
Pushed that as well.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
I've noticed problem with UPDATE ... FROM statement. Fix in new version.
Regards,
Karol
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/update.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/update.sgml
index 90b9208..eba35f0 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/update.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/update.sgml
@@ -194,12 +194,27 @@ UPDATE [ ONLY ]
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 6:45 AM, didier did...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
in void
BootStrapXLOG(void)
* to seed it other than the system clock value...) The upper half of
the
* uint64 value is just the tv_sec part, while the lower half is the
XOR
* of tv_sec and
On 2013-07-22 15:55:46 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 6:45 AM, didier did...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
in void
BootStrapXLOG(void)
* to seed it other than the system clock value...) The upper half of
the
* uint64 value is just the tv_sec part, while
On 7/22/13 7:21 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Would somebody object to making the rmgr's invo value #defines like:
I'm suspicious of enums that are assigned specific values. Enums should
stand by themselves, they shouldn't be a symbolic layer on top of some
other numbering or bit-fiddling scheme.
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I would suggest that these changes be undone, except that the old
SELECT FOR ... be replaced by a dynamic string that reverse-parses the
LockingClause to provide the actual clause that was used.
Here's a patch for this.
--
Álvaro Herrera
On 7/22/13 2:57 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
* I'd be very surprised if this doesn't make WAL replay of update heavy
workloads slower by at least factor of 2.
I was thinking about what a benchmark of WAL replay would look like last
year. I don't think that data is captured very well yet, and
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
4. If we use GetActiveSnapshot, all the comments about about a fresh
MVCC snapshot still apply. However, the snapshot in question could be
even more stale, especially in repeatable read or serializable mode.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 07/22/2013 03:11 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2013/7/22 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
Rather than just continuing to add more imposible-to-remember syntax,
we really need a better design here.
do you have any
On 7/20/13 10:08 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
With that change to expand_targetlist(), the change to getrelid() may
be unnecessary, and then also the new rowsec_relid field in
RangeTblEntry may not be needed.
Hmm. I didn't have this idea. It seems to me fair enough and kills
necessity to enhance
Pavan Deolasee escribió:
Hello,
While doing some tests, I observed that expression indexes can malfunction
if the underlying expression changes.
[...]
Perhaps this is a known behaviour/limitation, but I could not find that in
the documentation. But I wonder if it makes sense to check for
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Pavan Deolasee escribió:
Hello,
While doing some tests, I observed that expression indexes can malfunction
if the underlying expression changes.
[...]
Perhaps this is a known behaviour/limitation, but I could
On 2013-07-22 17:04:06 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Pavan Deolasee escribió:
Hello,
While doing some tests, I observed that expression indexes can malfunction
if the underlying expression changes.
[...]
Perhaps this is a known behaviour/limitation, but I could not find that in
Hackers,
According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#Times):
Decimal fractions may also be added to any of the three time elements. A
decimal mark, either a comma or a dot (without any preference as stated in
resolution 10 of the 22nd General Conference CGPM in 2003,[11]
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
SELECT * from top5();
$ TABLE top5; -- add a view on top of the SRF
you cannot use parameters - then I have to have prepared files like
top10, top20, ... what is not too friendly
The SRF could be using custom GUCs so that you can parametrize
On 2013-07-17 10:11:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Kevin Grittner kgri...@postgresql.org writes:
Add support for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY.
The buildfarm members that use -DCLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS say this patch
is broken.
Jagarundi still tells that story. At least something like the
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Ants Aasma ants.aa...@eesti.ee wrote:
On Jul 21, 2013 4:06 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
If these hooks will need to apply to a larger operation, I
think that mandates a different means to reliably expose the before/after
object states.
I haven't
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-07-17 10:11:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Kevin Grittner kgri...@postgresql.org writes:
Add support for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY.
The buildfarm members that use -DCLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS say this
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 02:44:59PM -0700, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
SELECT * from top5();
$ TABLE top5; -- add a view on top of the SRF
you cannot use parameters - then I have to have prepared files like
top10, top20, ... what is not too
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 03:55:33PM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 02:44:59PM -0700, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
SELECT * from top5();
$ TABLE top5; -- add a view on top of the SRF
you cannot use parameters - then I
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2013-07-17 10:11:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
The buildfarm members that use -DCLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS say this patch
is broken.
Jagarundi still tells that story.
Uh, no. Jagarundi was perfectly happy for several build cycles after
I committed
On 6/24/13 12:57 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Maciej is correct that this policy also belongs on the how to submit a
patch wiki page. I will remedy that.
I just reviewed and heavily updated the new section you added to
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Submitting_a_Patch That included the
idea
David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.com writes:
But I do wonder if the comma should be allowed for fractional seconds,
since the spec says it is preferred (and often used in Javaland, I'm
told). As in 14:30:50,232. Thoughts?
Does that create any ambiguities against formats we already support?
On 2013-07-22 19:09:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2013-07-17 10:11:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
The buildfarm members that use -DCLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS say this patch
is broken.
Jagarundi still tells that story.
Uh, no. Jagarundi was perfectly
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2013-07-22 17:04:06 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
One way to attack this would be registering dependencies of a new kind
on functions used by index expressions. Then CREATE OR REPLACE function
could reject alteration for such functions. I don't
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2013-07-22 15:55:46 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
And why is that?
The comment above tells: while the lower half is the XOR of tv_sec and
tv_usec.
Yeah, the code doesn't match the comment; this mistake seems to be
aboriginal.
I don't think it
All,
Christophe just discovered something with include files which is going
to cause issues with ALTER SYSTEM SET.
So, take as a hypothetical that you use the default postgresql.conf
file, which sets shared_buffers = 32MB.
Instead of editing this file, you do ALTER SYSTEM SET shared_buffers =
Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com writes:
Is looking for the biggest tables a common enough thing that it should
be available to everyone, without needing custom customization?
I don't really think so. It's surely not much harder than
select relname, pg_relation_size(oid) from pg_class
On 07/22/2013 04:26 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 07/22/2013 03:11 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2013/7/22 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
Rather than just continuing to add more imposible-to-remember syntax,
we really
Very minor update with V19 here, to reflect Alvaro's comments. The
tricky part now reads like this:
High rate limit schedule lag values, that is lag values that are large
compared to the actual transaction latency, indicate that something is
amiss in the throttling process. High schedule
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
Christophe just discovered something with include files which is going
to cause issues with ALTER SYSTEM SET.
So, take as a hypothetical that you use the default postgresql.conf
file, which sets shared_buffers = 32MB.
Instead of editing this file, you
On 2013-07-23 00:01:50 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-07-17 10:11:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Kevin Grittner kgri...@postgresql.org writes:
Add support for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY.
The buildfarm members that use -DCLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS say this patch
is broken.
On 7/3/13 7:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
The extrapolation of Josh's approach is that committers
have to do work that the community wants to maintain their commit
rights, but their commit rights are helping the community, so why would
people care if you take them away --- you only hurt the
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 01:47:00PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 07/21/2013 11:30 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Attached patch just restores the old behavior. Would it be worth
preserving
the ability to fix an index consistency problem with a REINDEX independent
from related heap consistency
Ok, since Atri posted our work-so-far and there's not been much
comment, I'll outline here my proposed plan of attack.
Rather than, as in the WIP patch, using the agg finalfn to validate
the split between normal args and ORDER BY args, I propose this:
Firstly, as in the WIP patch,
func(a)
On 6/26/13 9:34 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Still wondering whether to use a A,B,C-based output
format per Tom's comment.
Wouldn't it also be helpful to remove The points used in the output are
not necessarily the points used on input by making that not true?
There are three obvious ways
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:40:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes:
Reasonable enough. Code that does use subtransactions will need to be more
careful than before to manually free tuple tables in the non-error case.
Failure to do so has been creating a leak that
Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:40:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Hmm ... good point. The other plan I'd been considering was to add
explicit tracking inside spi.c of all tuple tables created within the
current procedure, and then have AtEOSubXact_SPI flush any
After pushes from a few people, the remaining submissions are now
waiting for commit. I updated each of those to have the latest info in
the CF app, and tried to identify what committers have already looked at
them.
Access to calls stack from GET DIAGNOSTICS statement: ?
Add more
I wrote:
After some reflection I think that the best fix is to redefine
AcquireRewriteLocks' processing of dropped columns so that it puts an
actual null pointer, not a consed-up Const, into the joinaliasvars list
item.
Here's a complete patch along that line. Possibly worthy of note is
that
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Remove unused targets from plan: Alvaro? (He reviewed it already)
Really I should do that one, but it seems like all my available cycles
have been going into bug fixing lately :-(
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
On 7/22/13 4:52 AM, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote:
The writeback source code which I indicated part of writeback is almost
same as community kernel (2.6.32.61). I also read linux kernel 3.9.7,
but it is almost same this part.
The main source code difference comes from going back to the RedHat 5
Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Remove unused targets from plan: Alvaro? (He reviewed it already)
Really I should do that one, but it seems like all my available cycles
have been going into bug fixing lately :-(
Yeah, I only did a first pass over that patch and
On 07/21/2013 10:42 PM, Миша Тюрин wrote:
hi, list, again. the next proposal into auto explain. one would be happy if
could set list of target tables and indexes. sometimes it is very hard to
detect who is using your indexes. but turn total logging on under thousands
transactions per
Noah Misch wrote:
I meant to ask whether, instead of reverting the accidental behavior change,
we should do something like leave the behavior and change the documentation
instead. I personally vote no, but that alternative seemed credible enough
to justify mentioning it. Something more
On 07/23/2013 11:24 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 07/21/2013 10:42 PM, Миша Тюрин wrote:
hi, list, again. the next proposal into auto explain. one would be happy if
could set list of target tables and indexes. sometimes it is very hard to
detect who is using your indexes. but turn total
Recently I've been dismissing a lot of suggested changes to checkpoint
fsync timing without suggesting an alternative. I have a simple one in
mind that captures the biggest problem I see: that the number of
backend and checkpoint writes to a file are not connected at all.
We know that a 1GB
On 07/23/2013 11:41 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 07/23/2013 11:24 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 07/21/2013 10:42 PM, Миша Тюрин wrote:
hi, list, again. the next proposal into auto explain. one would be happy if
could set list of target tables and indexes. sometimes it is very hard to
detect who
I agree with Robert. My tip is this: when you're in a hole, the first thing
to do is to stop digging.
I don't think that Pavel believes himself to be in a hole.
After setting up my .psqlrc file as I normally do, I could do this:
:rtsize limit 10;
But it doesn't have the 'MB' feature, and
On 7/22/13 10:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Remove unused targets from plan: Alvaro? (He reviewed it already)
Really I should do that one, but it seems like all my available cycles
have been going into bug fixing lately :-(
I just put you down as the
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
