The big-picture problem with work in this area is that no matter how you
do it, any benefit is likely to be both platform- and workload-specific.
So the prospects for getting a patch accepted aren't all that bright.
Indeed.
Would it make sense to have something easier to configure that
2013/8/22 Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to
On 8/22/13 9:08 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Probably we can introduce a new level of verbosity, but I am thinking so
this behave is reasonable. Everybody who use a VERBOSE level expect lot of
balast and it show expected info (context of error)
Can be this
After someone in IRC asked if there was an equivalent to MySQL's
server_id, it was noted that we do have a system identifier but it's not
very accessible.
The attached patch implements a pg_system_identifier() function that
exposes it.
Would it make sense for such identifiers be standard
Hi all,
I understand that setting synchronous_standby_name to '*' means that
all priority of standby server are same.
and the standby server, which connected to the master server at first,
become SYNC standby, another server become
ASYNC standby as potential server.
So, how to set the priority
2013/8/23 Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr:
The big-picture problem with work in this area is that no matter how you
do it, any benefit is likely to be both platform- and workload-specific.
So the prospects for getting a patch accepted aren't all that bright.
Indeed.
Would it make sense
On 8/23/13 8:38 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2013/8/22 Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to
I like the idea, but I think this should be a new verbosity level. With
this patch you would have to go full VERBOSE just to debug PL/pgSQL code
with NOTICEs and DEBUGs in it, and that output then becomes harder to
Would it make sense to have something easier to configure that recompiling
postgresql and managing a custom executable, say a block size that could be
configured from initdb and/or postmaster.conf, or maybe per-object settings
specified at creation time?
I love the idea of per-object block
2013/8/23 Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to
On 8/23/13 8:38 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2013/8/22 Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to
I like the idea, but I think this should be a new verbosity level. With
this patch you would have to go full VERBOSE just to debug PL/pgSQL code
with NOTICEs and DEBUGs in
* Amit Kapila (amit.kapil...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Amit Kapila (amit.kapil...@gmail.com) wrote:
Enable/Disable reading of auto file
-
a. Have a new include in
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Amit Kapila (amit.kapil...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Amit Kapila (amit.kapil...@gmail.com) wrote:
Enable/Disable reading of auto file
Hi guys,
I was wondering if there is a proposal for parallelize pg_basebackup (sorry
if there is already one, I looked into the inbox and did not find any).
I made a simple test and the performance gain is pretty considerable using
parallel rsync processes vs. single pg_basebackup.
i.e., for
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
An idea that I'd like to investigate is, PostgreSQL allocates a set of
continuous buffers to fit larger i/o size when block is referenced due to
sequential scan, then invokes consolidated i/o request on the buffer.
It
Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com writes:
The attached patch implements a pg_system_identifier() function that
exposes it.
It's information about the server that's only accessible through
pg_controldata. I don't know if that's justification enough, which is
why I didn't add it to the
On 08/22/2013 06:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
A
Do we have a reliable way of generating a unique identifier for each slave
(independently of how that might be exposed)?
Probably we could just generate an unique UUID when we first detect
that we are replicating from the master with same UUID.
This of
This doesn't generate a unique id. You could back up a standby and restore
it and point it at the original master and end up with two standbies with
the same id.
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
On 08/22/2013 06:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
A
Do we have
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr wrote:
After someone in IRC asked if there was an equivalent to MySQL's
server_id, it was noted that we do have a system identifier but it's not
very accessible.
The attached patch implements a pg_system_identifier() function
Christopher Browne cbbro...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr wrote:
Would it make sense for such identifiers be standard UUID
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUID)?
There is sense to this, sure.
That ship's already sailed, though. As was
On 8/16/13 7:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I think the gripe here is that pg_sleep('42') has worked for
many releases now, and if we add this patch then it would suddenly
stop working. How common is that usage likely to be (probably not
very), and how useful is it to have a version of pg_sleep that
Pavel,
But it can have a different reason. In T-SQL (Microsoft or Sybase) or MySQL
a unbound query is used to direct transfer data to client side.
Are you planning to implement that in PL/pgSQL?
Currently, PL/pgSQL requires RETURN in order to return a query
result to the caller. Is
It just inserts nb records in a loop in 4 different maneers:
- Directly in an int field
- Then in a numeric field (that's where we're having problems)
- Then in the same numeric field, but trying a cast (it doesn't change a
thing)
- Then tries with an intermediary temp variable of numeric
On 08/23/2013 12:42 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
in case (a), those priority is clear. So I think that re-taking over
is correct behaviour.
OHOT, in case (b), even if AAA and BBB are set same priority, AAA
server steals SYNC replication.
I think it is better that BBB server continue behaviour
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Pavel,
But it can have a different reason. In T-SQL (Microsoft or Sybase) or MySQL
a unbound query is used to direct transfer data to client side.
Are you planning to implement that in PL/pgSQL?
Currently, PL/pgSQL
I looked into the problem reported here:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e1vcmgf-0001uf...@wrigleys.postgresql.org
What's happening is that the Var that represents my_col in the outer
query has typmod -1, but after we inline the SQL function we can see that
what it returns is varchar(5), so
2013/8/23 Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com
Pavel,
But it can have a different reason. In T-SQL (Microsoft or Sybase) or
MySQL
a unbound query is used to direct transfer data to client side.
Are you planning to implement that in PL/pgSQL?
yes. I would to see a stored procedures with this
2013/8/23 Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Pavel,
But it can have a different reason. In T-SQL (Microsoft or Sybase) or
MySQL
a unbound query is used to direct transfer data to client side.
Are you planning to
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/8/23 Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com
I think so is not good if some programming language functionality does one
in one context (functions) and does something else in second context
(procedures).
It's not
2013/8/23 Fábio Telles Rodriguez fabio.tel...@gmail.com
It just inserts nb records in a loop in 4 different maneers:
- Directly in an int field
- Then in a numeric field (that's where we're having problems)
- Then in the same numeric field, but trying a cast (it doesn't change a
thing)
-
2013/8/23 Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
2013/8/23 Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com
I think so is not good if some programming language functionality does
one
in one context (functions) and does
On Aug 23, 2013, at 8:51 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
it is about a personal taste - if you prefer more verbose or less verbose
languages.
I feeling a PERFORM usage as something special and you example is nice case,
where I am think so PERFORM is good for verbosity.
2013/8/23 David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.com
On Aug 23, 2013, at 8:51 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
it is about a personal taste - if you prefer more verbose or less
verbose languages.
I feeling a PERFORM usage as something special and you example is nice
case,
For example, if you had foo(point) and much later you want to add
foo(box), someone might complain that foo('(1,2)') has worked for many
releases now, and how common is that use? If we had started out with
foo(point) and foo(line) simultaneously, this wouldn't have become a
problem.
You may
On 08/23/2013 11:30 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2013/8/23 Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com
Pavel,
But it can have a different reason. In T-SQL (Microsoft or Sybase) or
MySQL
a unbound query is used to direct transfer data to client side.
Are you planning to implement that in PL/pgSQL?
yes.
On 2013-08-23 22:02, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 08/23/2013 11:30 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2013/8/23 Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com
Pavel,
But it can have a different reason. In T-SQL (Microsoft or Sybase) or
MySQL
a unbound query is used to direct transfer data to client side.
Are you
On 08/23/2013 01:06 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
Is there some reason we wouldn't use RETURN QUERY in that case, instead
of SELECT? As I said above, it would be more consistent with existing
PL/pgSQL.
How would using the same syntax to do an entirely different thing be
consistent?
Currently
2013/8/23 Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com
On 08/23/2013 11:30 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2013/8/23 Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com
Pavel,
But it can have a different reason. In T-SQL (Microsoft or Sybase) or
MySQL
a unbound query is used to direct transfer data to client side.
Are
On 03.07.2013 21:28, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 6/6/13 4:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Here's a patch implementing that. Docs not updated yet. I did not change
the way checkpoint_segments triggers checkpoints - that'll can be a
separate patch. This only decouples the segment preallocation
On 08/23/2013 02:08 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Here's a bigger patch, which does more. It is based on the ideas in the
post I started this thread with, with feedback incorporated from the
long discussion. With this patch, WAL disk space usage is controlled by
two GUCs:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
please, can you send a self explained test
this issue should be fixed, and we need a examples.
We already had a perfectly good example at the beginning of this thread.
What's missing is a decision on how we ought to approximate the cost of
planning
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
On 08/23/2013 01:06 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
Is there some reason we wouldn't use RETURN QUERY in that case, instead
of SELECT? As I said above, it would be more consistent with existing
PL/pgSQL.
How would using the same syntax to do an entirely
All,
Per -performance, we're trying to isolate and reproduce a customer issue
where on 9.2 BINDs get progressively slower (as much as 2000% slower)
over the course of a long test run, in a way they *don't* in 8.4.
So I'm looking for a cause for this. One thing would help is a clearer
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
So I'm looking for a cause for this. One thing would help is a clearer
understanding of what happens at BIND time for 3-phase queries.
Planning.
Note that, in this workload, the user is re-parsing the queries
over-and-over rather than using prepared
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 10:51 -0300, Emanuel Calvo wrote:
I was wondering if there is a proposal for parallelize pg_basebackup
There isn't one, but after some talk behind the scenes, I think we
should definitely look into it.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On 1/10/13 6:14 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 10 January 2013 20:13, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 05:06:49PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Let's wait till we see where the logical rep stuff ends up before we
worry about saving 4 bytes
On 6/22/13 8:19 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 21 June 2013 20:03, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
Who can be point of contact from the community to arrange shipping, etc?
Do they need to be shipped? Can we just leave them where they are and
arrange access and power charges to be passed to SPI?
44 matches
Mail list logo
