On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Claudio Freire klaussfre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Claudio Freire klaussfre...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
Even better would be if the
On 18/03/14 20:45, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2014-03-18 20:44 GMT+01:00 Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com
mailto:p...@2ndquadrant.com:
On 18/03/14 20:36, Pavel Stehule wrote:
para
+To aid the user in finding instances of simple but common
problems before
Tom Lane escribió:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Please see my reply to Robert. My proposal (in form of a patch) is
while operating on tuple (0,2) in table foo: updating tuple
Would this work for you?
It's pretty lousy from a readability standpoint, even in English;
2014-03-18 20:49 GMT+01:00 Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com:
On 18/03/14 20:45, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2014-03-18 20:44 GMT+01:00 Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com:
On 18/03/14 20:36, Pavel Stehule wrote:
para
+To aid the user in finding instances of simple but common problems
On 03/18/2014 12:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
I still think a rewriting noop ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN col TYPE
old_type USING (col); is the only real thing to do.
Then why wouldn't VACUUM FULL work?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
On 2014-03-18 12:52:49 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 03/18/2014 12:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
I still think a rewriting noop ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN col TYPE
old_type USING (col); is the only real thing to do.
Then why wouldn't VACUUM FULL work?
Please read the referenced message and
On 03/18/2014 12:55 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-03-18 12:52:49 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 03/18/2014 12:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
I still think a rewriting noop ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN col TYPE
old_type USING (col); is the only real thing to do.
Then why wouldn't VACUUM FULL
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Joshua Yanovski pythones...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a SQL script that (1) demonstrates the new index only scan
functionality, and (2) at least on my machine, has a consistently
higher planning time for the version with my change than without it.
I'm glad you're
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
That alone could improve things considerably, and statistical info could
be
propagated along expressions to make it possible to model uncertainty in
complex expressions as well.
But how would that work? I see no
Folks:
So another question, which I've already received from the field, is how
can you detect this kind of corruption in the first place, if it's not
causing a user-visible error?
Got that question from someone who failed over between master and
replica on 9.3.2 last weekend. They're not seeing
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Meh. I think you're putting a bit too much faith in your ability to
predict the locus of bugs that you think aren't there.
Well, I'm open to suggestions.
As a suggestion: it'd be
I'm glad you're looking at this, but we're in the final throws of
nailing down 9.4 and I don't have anticipate I'll have time to look at
it in the near future. You should add it here so we don't forget
about it:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open
Yeah, no
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-03-18 19:28:53 +, Greg Stark wrote:
It would be nice to be able to tell people that if they vacuum, then
reindex and check all their foreign key constraints then they should
be ok.
I don't think so:
On 2014-03-18 16:19:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-03-18 19:28:53 +, Greg Stark wrote:
It would be nice to be able to tell people that if they vacuum, then
reindex and check all their foreign key constraints then they should
be ok.
I
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Joshua Yanovski pythones...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm glad you're looking at this, but we're in the final throws of
nailing down 9.4 and I don't have anticipate I'll have time to look at
it in the near future. You should add it here so we don't forget
about it:
Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-03-18 16:19:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-03-18 19:28:53 +, Greg Stark wrote:
It would be nice to be able to tell people that if they vacuum, then
reindex and check all their foreign key constraints then
On 02/06/2014 01:54 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
So while post-recovery callbacks no longer exist for any
rmgr-managed-resource, 100% of remaining startup and cleanup callbacks
concern the simple management of memory of
On 2014-03-18 17:34:34 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-03-18 16:19:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-03-18 19:28:53 +, Greg Stark wrote:
It would be nice to be able to tell people that if they vacuum, then
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
Yeah, it's a bit silly that each resource manager has to do that on
their own. It would be useful to have a memory context that was
automatically reset between each WAL record. In fact that should
probably be the default memory context you
Wim Dumon wrote:
9.3.1 is the version that failed for me, MSVS 2012, Windows 7.
It's pretty clear that we will never be able to keep this working unless
somebody sets up a buildfarm animal that tests this stuff directly.
If you're up to the task, please see here:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Attached V4 uses shadowed-variables instead of shadow.
I think that should be shadowed_variables for consistency; GUC
values usually have underscores, not dashes. (e.g.
intervalstyle=sql_standard,
On 03/18/2014 04:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Mail that's CC/TOed to me onlist, is automatically marked as read by a
sieve script so I don't have to mark it as read twice. It seems
something went wrong there for a couple of messages...
Why not just turn on eliminatecc on the majordomo
On 18 March 2014 20:52, Marti Raudsepp ma...@juffo.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Attached V4 uses shadowed-variables instead of shadow.
I think that should be shadowed_variables for consistency; GUC
values usually have underscores, not
Hi Petr,
On 3/18/14, 8:38 PM, I wrote:
I did one small change (that I think was agreed anyway) from Marko's
original patch in that warnings are only emitted during function
creation, no runtime warnings and no warnings for inline (DO) plpgsql
code either as I really don't think these optional
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:39:03AM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 8 March 2014 11:14, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Implemented in attached patch, v22
I commend this patch to you for final review; I would like to commit
this in a few days.
I'm planning to commit this today at
All,
Updated per feedback. CC'd to Advocacy now for additional corrections.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
The PostgreSQL Global Development Group has released an update to all supported version of the database system, including versions 9.3.4, 9.2.8, 9.1.13,
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
Updated per feedback. CC'd to Advocacy now for additional corrections.
A few thoughts:
The PostgreSQL Global Development Group has released an update to all
supported version of the database system, including versions 9.3.4, 9.2.8,
9.1.13, 9.0.19, and
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On 3/17/14, 10:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
It doesn't pass the regression tests. Do you need more of a bug report
than that?
It does pass the tests for me and others. If you are seeing something
different, then we need to see some details, like what
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
On 03/17/2014 05:49 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/20140320UpdateIssues
Anyone? We're going public with this in 36 hours, so I'd love for it to
actually be correct.
I did a bit more hacking on this page. Could use another look
It seems two exactly same sql sessions are repeated in
logicaldecoding.sgml. Is this intended?
postgres=# -- You can also peek ahead in the change stream without consuming
changes
postgres=# SELECT * FROM pg_logical_slot_peek_changes('regression_slot', NULL,
NULL);
location | xid |
Hi all,
Some of you may remember me from last year: I had applied to implement the
k-medoids clustering method in MADlib, a Postgres and GreenPlum library.
As this project could not be selected last year, I'm trying again now!
You can find my application at this address:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 09:13:28PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 03/18/2014 09:04 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 18 March 2014 18:55, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
That said, I don't find comma expression to be particularly not
simple.
Maybe, but we've not used it before
Hello!
Here is the text of my proposal which I've applied to GSoC.
(and link
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s-Q4rzEysPxo-dINsk_eKFJOBoVjNYDrQ-Oh75gtYEM/edit?usp=sharing)
Any suggestions and comments are welcome.
*
PostgreSQL GSoC 2014 proposal
Project name
Rewrite (add) pg_dump and
On Friday, 14 March 2014 2:42 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Haribabu Kommi kommi.harib...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
By the way have you checked if FreeSpaceMapVacuum() can
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Would people accept?
for (errno = 0; (dirent = readdir(dir)) != NULL; errno = 0)
It's a bit weird looking, but I agree that there's value in only needing
the errno-zeroing in precisely one place.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent
On Friday, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Maganus Hagander
mag...@hagander.netmailto:mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Hi,
In connection to my previous proposal about providing catalog view to
pg_hba.conf file contents , I have developed the attached patch .
[Current situation]
Currently, to view the
That's precisely what risk estimation was about.
Yeah. I would like to see the planner's cost estimates extended to
include some sort of uncertainty estimate, whereupon risk-averse people
could ask it to prefer low-uncertainty plans over high-uncertainty ones
(the plans we typically
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
When inserting into a B-tree index, all the pages are read-locked when
descending the tree. When we reach the leaf page, the read-lock is exchanged
for a write-lock.
There's nothing wrong with that, but why
101 - 138 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
