On 01/09/2014 11:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com writes:
My first thought was that it should just preprocess any security
barrier quals in subquery_planner() in the same way as other quals are
preprocessed. But thinking about it further, those quals are destined
On 01/11/2014 12:40 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
My problem is that in general I'm not sold on the actual utility of
making this kind of row locking work with exclusion constraints. I'm
sincerely having a hard time thinking of a practical use-case
(although, as I've said, I want to make it work
Hi Oskari,
I had a quick look over the patch (Not compiled though). Here are few
comments on the changes:
1. Documentation is missing and thus becomes difficult to understand what
exactly you are trying to do. Or in other words, user will be uncertain
about
using it more efficiently.
2. Some
On 01/11/2014 12:39 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
In any case, my patch is bound to win decisively for the other
extreme, the insert-only case, because the overhead of doing an index
scan first is always wasted there with your approach, and the overhead
of extended btree leaf page locking has been
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 08:28:57AM -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote:
desc.pgc:55: WARNING: descriptor outdesc does not exist
desc.pgc:86: WARNING: descriptor outdesc does not exist
Thanks, I didn't notice, fixed.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot
On 12 January 2014 10:12, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 01/09/2014 06:48 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
On 8 January 2014 10:19, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote:
The assertion failure with inheritance and sublinks is a separate
issue --- adjust_appendrel_attrs() is not
Hi,
On 13/01/14 10:26, Jeevan Chalke wrote:
1. Documentation is missing and thus becomes difficult to understand what
exactly you are trying to do. Or in other words, user will be uncertain
about using it more efficiently.
I figured I'd write documentation for this if it looks like a useful
On 01/09/2014 10:55 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 01/09/2014 12:05 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Actually, why is the partially-filled 00010002 file
archived in the first place? Looking at the code, it's been like that
forever, but it seems like a bad idea. If the original server
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 17:36 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
FWIW, I am perfectly fine with duplicating the functions for now - I
just thought that that might not be the best way but I didn't (and
still
don't) have a strong opinion.
Could we just put 0 in for the functions' OID and have code
On Sun, Jan 12, Amit Kapila wrote:
How would that work? Would it be a tool in contrib? There already
is a timeout, so if a tool checked more frequently than the timeout,
it should work. The durable notification of the admin would happen
in the tool, right?
Well, you know what
On 01/03/2014 07:53 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
If so, there is only the one-liner patch to consider.
This patch doesn't apply anymore. Please submit an updated patch for
the commit fest.
In src/include/utils/elog.h there is an include for utils/errcodes.h
which is generated somehow when
On 01/09/2014 11:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com writes:
My first thought was that it should just preprocess any security
barrier quals in subquery_planner() in the same way as other quals are
preprocessed. But thinking about it further, those quals are destined
Thank you, Erik !
Oleg
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Erik Rijkers e...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, January 13, 2014 00:24, Erik Rijkers wrote:
On Sat, January 11, 2014 22:47, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 01/11/2014 03:03 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
On Sat, January 11, 2014 20:30, Peter Eisentraut
On Jan12, 2014, at 04:18 , Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Thing is, when we talk about auto-degrade, we need to determine things
like Is the replica down or is this just a network blip? and take
action according to the user's desired configuration. This is not
something, realistically,
What remaining issues are there blocking a 9.3.3 release? I know that
there were unresolved multixact issues when we put out 9.3.2 --- are
those all dealt with now? What else do people see as release-blockers?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 17:36 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
FWIW, I am perfectly fine with duplicating the functions for now - I
just thought that that might not be the best way but I didn't (and
still don't) have a strong opinion.
Could we just put 0 in
Tom Lane wrote:
What remaining issues are there blocking a 9.3.3 release? I know that
there were unresolved multixact issues when we put out 9.3.2 --- are
those all dealt with now? What else do people see as release-blockers?
The only thing I'm aware still outstanding in multixact land is
On 2014-01-13 12:26:45 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
What remaining issues are there blocking a 9.3.3 release? I know that
there were unresolved multixact issues when we put out 9.3.2 --- are
those all dealt with now? What else do people see as release-blockers?
The only
Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-01-13 12:26:45 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
What remaining issues are there blocking a 9.3.3 release? I know that
there were unresolved multixact issues when we put out 9.3.2 --- are
those all dealt with now? What else do people see as
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 01/13/2014 03:25 AM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
There are errors in the example expressions in Table F-6. hstore Operators.
Attached is a cumulative doc-patch (which includes the changes I sent
earlier) which fixes these.
I also attach an test perl program that
Andrew,
did you run perl script ? Actually, I found, that operator table needs
to be fixed.
Oleg
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 01/13/2014 03:25 AM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
There are errors in the example expressions in Table F-6. hstore
Alvaro Herrera escribió:
In an event trigger, the function pg_event_trigger_get_creation_commands()
returns the following JSON blob:
After playing with this for a while, I realized something that must have
seemed quite obvious to those paying attention: what this function is,
is just a
On 01/13/2014 11:03 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 01/13/2014 03:25 AM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
There are errors in the example expressions in Table F-6. hstore Operators.
Attached is a cumulative doc-patch (which includes the changes I sent earlier)
which fixes these.
I
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Implicit casts to text, anybody?
This backward compatibility break orphaned the company I work for on
8.1 until last year and very nearly caused postgres to be summarily
extirpated (only rescued at the last minute by my
Hi,
I'm the chair for Linux Storage, Filesystem and Memory Management Summit 2014
(LSF/MM). A CFP was sent out last month (https://lwn.net/Articles/575681/)
that you may have seen already.
In recent years we have had at least one topic that was shared between
all three tracks that was lead by a
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
On 8.1.2014 22:58, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Thanks for reporting. Fixed version is attached.
I've tried to rerun the 'archie' benchmark with the current patch, and
once again I got
PANIC: could not split GIN page,
Hackers!
This patch was split from thread:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfdscOX5an71nHd8WSUH6GNOCf=V7wgDaTXdDd9=gon-...@mail.gmail.com
I've split it to separate thead, because it's related to partial sort only
conceptually not technically. Also I renamed it to knn-gist-recheck from
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 11:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
We should have learned by now that those are usually a bad idea.
In this case, we've got changes in the behavior of function calling,
which seems like not only a
On 01/13/2014 11:16 AM, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
Andrew,
did you run perl script ? Actually, I found, that operator table needs
to be fixed.
No. My build machine doesn't actually have DBD::Pg installed. Can you
send me a patch if you don't want to push it yourself, or maybe Erik can
send a
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Andreas Karlsson andr...@proxel.se wrote:
On 12/29/2013 08:24 AM, David Rowley wrote:
If it was possible to devise some way to reuse any
previous tuplesortstate perhaps just inventing a reset method which
clears out tuples, then we could see performance
On 12/17/2013 04:58 PM, Christian Kruse wrote:
attached you will find a patch for showing the current transaction id
(xid) and the xmin of a backend in pg_stat_activty and the xmin in
pg_stat_replication.
Docs.
When an admin is looking for a long-running transaction that's blocking
vacuum,
On 01/13/2014 04:12 PM, Florian Pflug wrote:
On Jan12, 2014, at 04:18 , Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Thing is, when we talk about auto-degrade, we need to determine things
like Is the replica down or is this just a network blip? and take
action according to the user's desired
On 01/13/2014 10:12 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
In other words, if we're going to have auto-degrade, the most
intelligent place for it is in
RepMgr/HandyRep/OmniPITR/pgPoolII/whatever. It's also the *easiest*
place. Anything we do *inside* Postgres is going to have a really,
really hard time
Mel,
I'm the chair for Linux Storage, Filesystem and Memory Management Summit 2014
(LSF/MM). A CFP was sent out last month (https://lwn.net/Articles/575681/)
that you may have seen already.
In recent years we have had at least one topic that was shared between
all three tracks that was
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Does the PostgreSQL community have a problem with recent
kernels, particularly with respect to the storage, filesystem or
memory management layers?
How about don't add major IO behavior changes with no
backwards-compatibility switches? ;-)
I notice,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Exclusion constraints can be used to implement uniqueness checks with
SP-GiST or GiST indexes. For example, if you want to enforce that there are
no two tuples with the same x and y coordinates, ie. use a point
On 01/13/2014 10:51 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
How about don't add major IO behavior changes with no
backwards-compatibility switches? ;-)
I notice, Josh, that you didn't mention the problems many people
have run into with Transparent Huge Page defrag and with NUMA
access. Is that because
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Etsuro Fujita
fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
I wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
Hmm, fair point. But I'm still not convinced that we really need to
add extra accounting for this. What's wrong with just reporting the
number of exact and lossy pages?
No. I
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Greg Stark st...@mit.edu writes:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
In short then, I think we should just add this to EXPLAIN and be done.
-1 for sticking the info into PlannedStmt or anything
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
Currently the patch includes changes to prepare.c which is what seems
odd to me. I think it'd be fine to say, hey, I can't give you the
planning time in this EXPLAIN ANALYZE because I just used a cached
plan and did not re-plan. But saying, hey,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
I notice, Josh, that you didn't mention the problems many people
have run into with Transparent Huge Page defrag and with NUMA
access.
Amen to that. Actually, I think NUMA can be (mostly?) fixed by
setting
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Exclusion constraints can be used to implement uniqueness checks with
SP-GiST or GiST indexes. For example, if you want to enforce that
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On a related note, there's also the problem of double-buffering. When
we read a page into shared_buffers, we leave a copy behind in the OS
buffers, and similarly on write-out. It's very unclear what to do
about this,
On 01/13/2014 09:06 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
My thought, at least, was to always grab the planning time and then
provide it for explain and/or explain analyze, and then for re-plan
cases, indicate if a cached plan was returned, if a replan happened, and
if a replan happened, what the old plan
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Uh, no, wasn't my suggestion. Doesn't that design imply measuring *every*
planning cycle, explain or no? I was thinking more of just putting the
timing calls into explain.c.
On 1/13/14, 2:19 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On a related note, there's also the problem of double-buffering. When
we read a page into shared_buffers, we leave a copy behind in the OS
buffers, and similarly on write-out.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org writes:
On Jan10, 2014, at 19:08 , Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Although, having said that ... maybe build your own aggregate would
be a reasonable suggestion for people who need this? I
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
On 1/13/14, 2:19 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
wrote:
On a related note, there's also the problem of double-buffering. When
we read a page into shared_buffers, we
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Uh, no, wasn't my suggestion. Doesn't that design imply measuring *every*
planning cycle, explain or no? I was
On 1/13/14, 2:27 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
On 1/13/14, 2:19 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
wrote:
On a related note, there's also the problem of double-buffering.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
That's my point. In terms of kernel-postgres interaction, it's fairly
simple.
What's not so simple, is figuring out what policy to use. Remember,
you cannot tell the kernel to put some page in its page cache without
reading it
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Meh. Why? This would only come into play for EXPLAIN EXECUTE stmtname.
I don't think users would be surprised to see a report of minimal planning
time for that. In fact, it might be
On 2014-01-13 15:15:16 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
I notice, Josh, that you didn't mention the problems many people
have run into with Transparent Huge Page defrag and with NUMA
access.
Amen to that. Actually, I
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, currently this applies to update, what I have in mind is that
in future if some one wants to use WAL compression for any other
operation like 'full_page_writes', then it can be easily extendible.
To be honest, I
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Meh. Why? This would only come into play for EXPLAIN EXECUTE stmtname.
I don't think users would be surprised to
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
For what it's worth, I agree with Heikki. There's probably nothing
sensible an upsert can do if it conflicts with more than one tuple,
but if it conflicts with just exactly one, it oughta be OK.
If there is exactly
Hi Alexander,
First, thanks a lot for working on this feature. This PostgreSQL
shortcoming crops up in all the time in web applications that implement
paging by multiple sorted columns.
I've been trying it out in a few situations. I implemented a new
enable_partialsort GUC to make it easier to
On 1/13/14, 2:37 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
That's my point. In terms of kernel-postgres interaction, it's fairly
simple.
What's not so simple, is figuring out what policy to use. Remember,
you cannot tell the kernel to put some
On 01/13/2014 10:53 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
For what it's worth, I agree with Heikki. There's probably nothing
sensible an upsert can do if it conflicts with more than one tuple,
but if it conflicts with just exactly
On 2014-01-13 15:53:36 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
I've wondered before if there wouldn't be a chance for postgres to say
my dear OS, that the file range 0-8192 of file x contains y, no need to
reread and do that when we evict a page from s_b but I never dared to
actually propose that to
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
On 1/13/14, 2:27 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
On 1/13/14, 2:19 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Trond Myklebust tron...@gmail.com wrote:
O_DIRECT was specifically designed to solve the problem of double buffering
between applications and the kernel. Why are you not able to use that in
these situations?
O_DIRECT was apparently designed by a deranged
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 14:32 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 1/13/14, 2:27 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
On 1/13/14, 2:19 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
wrote:
On a
On Jan 13, 2014, at 15:40, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-01-13 15:15:16 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
I notice, Josh, that you didn't mention the problems many people
have run into with Transparent
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Wanna go to Collab?
I don't think that works out for me, but thanks for suggesting it.
I'd be happy to brainstorm with anyone who does go about issues to
discuss; although the ones I keep running into have already been
mentioned.
Regarding the problems
On 2014-01-13 12:34:35 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 14:32 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
Well, if we were to collaborate with the kernel community on this then
presumably we can do better than that for eviction... even to the
extent of here's some data from this range in
On 1/13/14, 12:21 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 01/13/2014 10:12 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
In other words, if we're going to have auto-degrade, the most
intelligent place for it is in
RepMgr/HandyRep/OmniPITR/pgPoolII/whatever. It's also the *easiest*
place. Anything we do *inside* Postgres
On 2014-01-13 15:14:21 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 1/13/14, 12:21 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 01/13/2014 10:12 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
In other words, if we're going to have auto-degrade, the most
intelligent place for it is in
RepMgr/HandyRep/OmniPITR/pgPoolII/whatever. It's also the
On 1/13/14, 10:40 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Craig Ringercr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Implicit casts to text, anybody?
This backward compatibility break orphaned the company I work for on
8.1 until last year and very nearly caused postgres to be summarily
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
For one, postgres doesn't use mmap for files (and can't without major
new interfaces). Frequently mmap()/madvise()/munmap()ing 8kb chunks has
horrible consequences for performance/scalability - very quickly you
On 01/13/2014 01:14 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 1/13/14, 12:21 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 01/13/2014 10:12 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
In other words, if we're going to have auto-degrade, the most
intelligent place for it is in
RepMgr/HandyRep/OmniPITR/pgPoolII/whatever. It's also the
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:40:57AM -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Implicit casts to text, anybody?
This backward compatibility break orphaned the company I work for on
8.1 until last year and very nearly caused
On 1/13/14, 1:44 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2014/1/12 Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org mailto:f...@phlo.org
On Jan12, 2014, at 22:37 , Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
mailto:pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
There is GUC for variable_conflict already too. In this case I would to
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:45 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:40:57AM -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Implicit casts to text, anybody?
This backward compatibility break orphaned the
Everyone,
I am looking for one or more hackers to go to Collab with me to discuss
this. If you think that might be you, please let me know and I'll look
for funding for your travel.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On 1/12/14, 9:35 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
On 01/12/2014 11:20 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Andreas Karlsson andr...@proxel.se wrote:
On 01/11/2014 11:42 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I recently suggested that rather than RETURNING REJECTS, we could have
a
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:45 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:40:57AM -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
This project has no deprecation policy,
I believe it actually does, although it's not a formal, written
policy. Would you like to help draft one up?
Lack of
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 03:15:16PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
I notice, Josh, that you didn't mention the problems many people
have run into with Transparent Huge Page defrag and with NUMA
access.
Ok, there are at
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 06:27:03PM -0200, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
On 1/13/14, 2:19 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
wrote:
On a related note, there's also the
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Well, even if you don't agree that locking all the conflicting rows for
update is sensible, it's still perfectly sensible to return the rejected
rows to the user. For example, you're inserting N rows, and if
On 2014-01-13 14:19:56 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
Frequently mmap()/madvise()/munmap()ing 8kb chunks has
horrible consequences for performance/scalability - very quickly you
contend on locks in the kernel.
Is this because of problems in the mmap_sem?
It's been a while since I looked
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:38:44PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Mon 13-01-14 22:26:45, Mel Gorman wrote:
The flipside is also meant to hold true. If you know data will be needed
in the near future then posix_fadvise(POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED). Glancing at
the implementation it does a forced
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
Well, a common case for INSERT RETURNING is to get your set of surrogate
keys back; so I think users would want the ability to RETURN what finally
made it into the table.
Your update can also have a RETURNING clause. I'm not
On Jan13, 2014, at 22:30 , Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
On 01/13/2014 01:14 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 1/13/14, 12:21 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 01/13/2014 10:12 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
In other words, if we're going to have auto-degrade, the most
intelligent place for
On 01/13/2014 02:26 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
Really?
zone_reclaim_mode is often a complete disaster unless the workload is
partitioned to fit within NUMA nodes. On older kernels enabling it would
sometimes cause massive stalls. I'm actually very surprised to hear it
fixes anything and would be
On 01/14/2014 12:40 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Implicit casts to text, anybody?
This backward compatibility break orphaned the company I work for on
8.1 until last year and very nearly caused postgres to be summarily
On 13.1.2014 18:07, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz
mailto:t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
On 8.1.2014 22:58, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Thanks for reporting. Fixed version is attached.
I've tried to rerun the 'archie' benchmark with
On Jan13, 2014, at 22:49 , Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
ISTM that in this case, it should be safe to make the new default behavior
STRICT;
if you forget to set the GUC to disable than you'll get an error that points
directly
at the problem, at which point you'll go Oh, yeah... I forgot
On 1/14/14, 12:41 AM, Florian Pflug wrote:
In fact, after reading the documentation on SELECT ... INTO, I'm convinced the
the whole consistent_into thing is a bad idea. The documentation states clearly
that
For INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE with RETURNING, PL/pgSQL reports an error for more
than
On 01/13/2014 03:41 PM, Florian Pflug wrote:
It therefor isn't an oversight that SELECT ... INTO allows multiple result
rows
but INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE forbids them, it's been done that way on purpose and
for a reason. We shouldn't be second-guessing ourselves by changing that
later -
not,
On 01/13/2014 09:53 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Jan 13, 2014, at 15:40, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-01-13 15:15:16 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
I notice, Josh, that you didn't mention the problems
On 01/14/2014 12:33 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 01/14/2014 12:40 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Implicit casts to text, anybody?
This backward compatibility break orphaned the company I work for on
8.1 until last year and
On 1/13/14, 5:05 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
Well, a common case for INSERT RETURNING is to get your set of surrogate
keys back; so I think users would want the ability to RETURN what finally
made it into the table.
Your update
On Jan14, 2014, at 00:52 , Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to wrote:
When I've worked with PL/PgSQL, this has been a source of a few bugs that
would have been noticed during testing if the behaviour of INTO wasn't as
dangerous as it is right now.
The question is, how many bugs stemmed from wrong SQL
On Mon, January 13, 2014 18:30, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 01/13/2014 11:16 AM, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
Andrew,
did you run perl script ? Actually, I found, that operator table needs
to be fixed.
No. My build machine doesn't actually have DBD::Pg installed. Can you
send me a patch if you
On 1/13/14, 5:57 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 01/13/2014 03:41 PM, Florian Pflug wrote:
It therefor isn't an oversight that SELECT ... INTO allows multiple result rows
but INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE forbids them, it's been done that way on purpose and
for a reason. We shouldn't be second-guessing
On 1/13/14, 6:16 PM, Florian Pflug wrote:
On Jan14, 2014, at 00:52 , Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to wrote:
When I've worked with PL/PgSQL, this has been a source of a few bugs that
would have been noticed during testing if the behaviour of INTO wasn't as
dangerous as it is right now.
The
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Mel Gorman mgor...@suse.de wrote:
That could be something we look at. There are cases buried deep in the
VM where pages get shuffled to the end of the LRU and get tagged for
reclaim as soon as possible. Maybe you need access to something like
that via
On 1/13/14, 5:33 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
So I guess the question is: Is it worth all that hassle to remove a
misfeature you have to go out of your way to use? Is support for non-1
lower bounds stopping us from doing something useful and important? Or
is it just an irritation that it exists?
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
