On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:19 AM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 4:19 AM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.com wrote:
Here it is.
So it looks like what you have here is analogous to the other problems
that I fixed with both GiST and GIN. That isn't
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Christian Kruse
christ...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 09/03/14 12:15, Amit Kapila wrote:
[...] due to which the message it displays seems to be
incomplete. Message it displays is as below:
LOG: process 1800 still waiting for ShareLock on transaction 679 after
Hi,
On 11/03/14 13:23, Amit Kapila wrote:
[… snip …]
So I think it's better to leave logging it as you have done in
patch.
Agreed.
[…]
2. Name new functions as
MultiXactIdWaitExtended()/XactLockTableWaitExtended()
or MultiXactIdWaitEx()/XactLockTableWaitEx().
You can find some other
On 10 March 2014 23:44, Tom Lane wrote:
Unfortunately, while testing it I noticed that there's a potentially
fatal backwards-compatibility problem, namely that the COPY n status
gets printed on stdout, which is the same place that COPY OUT data is
going. While this isn't such a big problem
From: Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
MauMau maumau...@gmail.com writes:
To put the question in other words, is it safe to load a multi-threaded
PL
library in the single-threaded backend process, if the PL only calls SPI
in
the main thread?
When it breaks, we're not going to be concerned.
I
Hi,
I am trying to figure out when disk is used to store intermediate results
while performing joins in postgres.
According my findings using 'explain analyse ' only merge sort uses disk.
Can anyone please throw some more light on this?
Thanks,
Parul
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Prakash Itnal prakash...@gmail.com wrote:
Can someone confirm is this really an issue? or any reasons for missing
rows?
Well, your database is definitely getting corrupted somehow. But
there's no information in your email which would enable someone to
guess
On 03/11/2014 01:24 PM, Parul Lakkad wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to figure out when disk is used to store intermediate results
while performing joins in postgres.
According my findings using 'explain analyse ' only merge sort uses disk.
Can anyone please throw some more light on this?
Hash joins
MauMau escribió:
Hi, Amit san,
I'm replying to your previous email. I wanted to reply to your
latest mail below, but I removed it from my mailer by mistake.
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1LAg6ndZdWLb5e=Ep5DzcE8KZU=JbmO+tFwySYHm2ja=q...@mail.gmail.com
Do you know how I can
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed that db_user_namespace has had the following note
attached to it since 2002:
This feature is intended as a temporary measure until a complete
solution is found. At that time, this option will be removed.
It
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
It will be 12 years this year since this temporary measure was
added. I'm just wondering, is there any complete solution that
anyone had in mind yet? Or should this just be
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
It will be 12 years this year since this temporary measure was
added. I'm just wondering, is there any complete
MauMau maumau...@gmail.com writes:
From: Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
When it breaks, we're not going to be concerned.
I may not understand your nuance. Which of the following do you mean?
* PL/Java's design is dangerous in terms of the mixture of single- and
multi-threading, and we cannot
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Are you claiming there are no users, and if so, on what evidence?
I am claiming that I don't think anybody is using that, yes.
Based on the fact that I have *never* come across it
Rajeev rastogi rajeev.rast...@huawei.com writes:
On 10 March 2014 23:44, Tom Lane wrote:
Unfortunately, while testing it I noticed that there's a potentially
fatal backwards-compatibility problem, namely that the COPY n status
gets printed on stdout, which is the same place that COPY OUT data
On 03/11/2014 09:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Are you claiming there are no users, and if so, on what evidence?
I am claiming that I don't think anybody is using that, yes.
Based on the
* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote:
Or we try to make it work. I don't think the idea is inherently bad,
and I know there are people (like ISPs) who would like to have it
work properly. Maybe in these days when most people are on dedicated
VMs this matters less, but I don't think
On 03/11/2014 12:37 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
Isn't the other issue for ISPs essentially that we don't have row-level
security for our global catalogs? as in- we can't limit what's in
pg_authid to only those entries a given user should be able to see? I
don't think db_user_namespace addresses
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Looks good, committed. However, I changed it so that
dsm_keep_segment() does not also perform the equivalent of
dsm_keep_mapping(); those are
On 11 March 2014 03:41, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Joe Conway m...@joeconway.com writes:
I am probably missing something obvious, but why does the
AccessShareLock remain held on a table after a SELECT statement is
complete when in a transaction block?
*Any* lock acquired by user
Tom Lane escribió:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fabr=EDzio_de_Royes_Mello?= fabriziome...@gmail.com writes:
You are correct. pg_dump export reloptions using WITH clause of CREATE
TABLE statement. I.e.:
CREATE TABLE foo (
)
WITH (autovacuum_enabled=false, bdr.do_replicate=false);
So if this
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 11 March 2014 03:41, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Joe Conway m...@joeconway.com writes:
I am probably missing something obvious, but why does the
AccessShareLock remain held on a table after a SELECT
On 11 March 2014 17:29, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 11 March 2014 03:41, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Joe Conway m...@joeconway.com writes:
I am probably missing something obvious, but why does
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 11 March 2014 17:29, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 11 March 2014 03:41, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Joe
On 11 March 2014 17:26, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Tom Lane escribió:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fabr=EDzio_de_Royes_Mello?= fabriziome...@gmail.com writes:
You are correct. pg_dump export reloptions using WITH clause of CREATE
TABLE statement. I.e.:
CREATE TABLE foo (
)
WITH
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/11/2014 12:26 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 11 March 2014 03:41, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Joe Conway m...@joeconway.com writes:
I am probably missing something obvious, but why does the
AccessShareLock remain held on a table after a
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
Gurjeet Singh wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Gurjeet Singh gurj...@singh.im writes:
I was looking for ways to reduce the noise in Postgres make output,
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 11 March 2014 17:26, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Tom Lane escribió:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fabr=EDzio_de_Royes_Mello?= fabriziome...@gmail.com
writes:
You are correct. pg_dump export reloptions using
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
-1 to *requiring* validation for table-level options for exactly the
same reasons we no longer validate custom GUCs.
Well, that is an interesting analogy, but I'm not sure how much it applies
here. In the case of a GUC, you can fairly easily validate
Hackers,
In the 9.3.3 updates, we added three new GUCs to control multixact
freezing. This was an unprecented move in my memory -- I can't recall
ever adding a GUC to a minor release which wasn't backwards
compatibility for a security fix. This was a mistake.
What makes these GUCs worse is
Where, if anywhere, is the current documentation for writing or using a
logical decoding output plugin consumer thingy?
I'm trying to find my way into it ...
src/backend/replication/logical/logical.c, which textually contains most
of the functions that appear to interact with the test_decoding
Hi,
On 2014-03-11 15:57:39 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Where, if anywhere, is the current documentation for writing or using a
logical decoding output plugin consumer thingy?
There's a pending patch for it. The corresponding commit is
Hello
I had to reduce allowed line style to single or double, because unicode
allows only combination single,double or single,thick
postgres=# \l
List of databases
Name| Owner | Encoding | Collate |Ctype| Access
privileges
Sigh ...
Josh Berkus wrote:
Further, there's no clear justification why these cannot be set to be
the same as our other freeze ages (which our users also don't
understand), or a constant calculated portion of them, or just a
constant.
Calculated portion was my first proposal. The objection
Josh Berkus wrote
Hackers,
In the 9.3.3 updates, we added three new GUCs to control multixact
freezing. This was an unprecented move in my memory -- I can't recall
ever adding a GUC to a minor release which wasn't backwards
compatibility for a security fix. This was a mistake.
It
Hi all,
a quick question that just occured to me - do you plan to tweak the cost
estimation fot GIN indexes, in this patch?
IMHO it would be appropriate, given the improvements and gains, but it
seems to me gincostestimate() was not touched by this patch.
I just ran into this while testing some
Hi,
I've spent a few hours stress-testing this a bit - loading a mail
archive with ~1M of messages (with headers stored in a jsonb column) and
then doing queries on that. Good news - no crashes or any such issues so
far. The queries that I ran manually seem to return sane results.
The only
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
On 03/11/2014 06:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Mind you, I wouldn't be unhappy to see it go away; it's a kluge and always
has been. I'm just expecting lots of push-back if we try. And it's kind
of hard to resist push-back when you don't have a substitute to
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
ERROR: index row size 1416 exceeds maximum 1352 for index gin_idx
All index AMs have similar restrictions.
A good example of such header is dkim-signature which basically
contains the whole message digitally signed with
On 11 March 2014 18:33, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
-1 to *requiring* validation for table-level options for exactly the
same reasons we no longer validate custom GUCs.
Well, that is an interesting analogy, but I'm not sure how much it applies
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
The docs say:
db_user_namespace causes the client's and server's user name
representation to differ. Authentication checks are always done with
the server's user name so authentication methods must be configured
for the server's user
On 03/11/2014 07:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
The docs say:
db_user_namespace causes the client's and server's user name
representation to differ. Authentication checks are always done with
the server's user name so authentication methods
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
I think that in practice the
general recommendation will be that when indexing at the top level,
use jsonb_hash_ops. When indexing nested items, use the more flexible
default GIN opclass. That seems like a pretty smart
On 03/11/2014 06:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Mind you, I wouldn't be unhappy to see it go away; it's a kluge and always
has been. I'm just expecting lots of push-back if we try. And it's kind
of hard to resist push-back when you don't have a substitute to offer.
Yeah, what we really need is
On 03/11/2014 09:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
In particular, I'd like to see an exclusion that prevents local users
from having the same name as any global user, so that we don't have
ambiguity in GRANT and similar commands. This doesn't seem simple to
enforce (if we supported partial indexes on
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 03/11/2014 09:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
In particular, I'd like to see an exclusion that prevents local users
from having the same name as any global user, so that we don't have
ambiguity in GRANT and similar commands. This doesn't seem simple to
So I'll admit to using it, only in toy setups...
I use it with trust and ident, on local connections though, not password
I try to keep my laptops clean of mysqld, and I use PG. And only on my
laptop/PC, I make a database for every user... And every app get's a
userid, and a schema
On 03/11/2014 11:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 03/11/2014 09:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
In particular, I'd like to see an exclusion that prevents local users
from having the same name as any global user, so that we don't have
ambiguity in GRANT and similar
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
But not sure how to define a unique
index that allows (joe, db1) to coexist with (joe, db2) but not with
(joe, 0).
and why you want that restriction? when you login you need to specify
the db, right? if you don't specify the
On 03/11/2014 11:50 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
But not sure how to define a unique
index that allows (joe, db1) to coexist with (joe, db2) but not with
(joe, 0).
and why you want that restriction? when you login you need to
On 11 March 2014 19:52, Tom Lane wrote:
After sleeping on it, I'm inclined to think we should continue to not
print status for COPY TO STDOUT. Aside from the risk of breaking
scripts, there's a decent analogy to be made to SELECT: we don't print
a status tag for that either.
It is correct
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 03/11/2014 11:50 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
But not sure how to define a unique
index that allows (joe, db1) to coexist with (joe, db2) but not
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
2014-03-06 18:17 GMT+09:00 Haribabu Kommi kommi.harib...@gmail.com:
I will update you later regarding the performance test results.
I ran the performance test on the cache scan patch and below are the readings.
Andrew Dunstan wrote
On 03/11/2014 11:50 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Tom Lane lt;
tgl@.pa
gt; wrote:
But not sure how to define a unique
index that allows (joe, db1) to coexist with (joe, db2) but not with
(joe, 0).
and why you want that restriction? when
54 matches
Mail list logo
