On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm pretty sure David Rowley did some benchmarking. The results should be
in this thread somewhere I think, but they currently evade me... Maybe
David
can re-post, if he's following this...
I saw benchmarks addressing
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org writes:
I was (and still am) not in favour of duplicating the whole quadruple of
(state, initialvalue, transferfunction, finalfunction) because it seems
excessive. In fact, I believed that doing
I executed given steps many times to produce this bug.
But still I unable to hit this bug.
I used attached scripts to produce this bug.
Can I get scripts to produce this bug?
wal_replay_bug.sh
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/file/n5799512/wal_replay_bug.sh
-
Thanks and
On 04/10/2014 10:52 AM, sachin kotwal wrote:
I executed given steps many times to produce this bug.
But still I unable to hit this bug.
I used attached scripts to produce this bug.
Can I get scripts to produce this bug?
wal_replay_bug.sh
(2014/04/10 0:08), Tom Lane wrote:
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes:
Oops! I found a bug in this patch. The previous v8 patch missed
the case that build_index_pathkeys() could build a partial
pathkeys from the index tlist.
TBH I think that's barely the tip of the
On 10 April 2014 11:18, Pavan Deolasee Wrote:
I could think of few global variables like transaction properties
related(i.e. read-only mode, isolation level etc). As I plan to keep
transaction properties of autonomous transaction same as main transaction, so
there is no need to have these
On 04/10/2014 07:19 AM, Tomonari Katsumata wrote:
Hi,
I'm reading xlog.c, and I noticed a comment of
do_pg_abort_backup is typo.
...
10247 * NB: This is only for aborting a non-exclusive backup that
doesn't write
10248 * backup_label. A backup started with pg_stop_backup() needs to be
On 10 April 2014 11:18, Pavan Deolasee Wrote:
I could think of few global variables like transaction properties
related(i.e. read-only mode, isolation level etc). As I plan to keep
transaction properties of autonomous transaction same as main transaction, so
there is no need to have these
On 4/9/14 9:56 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
As for docs and testing, those are things we would certainly be better
off with and may mean that this isn't able to make it into 9.4, which is
fair, but I wouldn't toss it out solely due to that.
We have a git repo with multiple worked out code
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:05:49AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:45:59AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
In fact, this C program compiled by gcc on Debian issues no compiler
warnings and returns 'hello',
I was wondering if there would be any way to do the following in PostgreSQL:
UPDATE cryptotable SET work = work + 'some big hexadecimal number'
where work is an unsigned 256 bit integer. Right now my column is a
character varying(64) column (hexadecimal representation of the number) but
I
Etsuro Fujita fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes:
(2014/04/10 0:08), Tom Lane wrote:
TBH I think that's barely the tip of the iceberg of cases where this
patch will get the wrong answer.
Also, I don't see it doing anything to check the ordering
of multiple index columns
I think that the
On 04/10/2014 09:13 AM, Olivier Lalonde wrote:
I was wondering if there would be any way to do the following in
PostgreSQL:
UPDATE cryptotable SET work = work + 'some big hexadecimal number'
where work is an unsigned 256 bit integer. Right now my column is a
character varying(64) column
On 04/10/2014 09:13 PM, Olivier Lalonde wrote:
I was wondering if there would be any way to do the following in PostgreSQL:
UPDATE cryptotable SET work = work + 'some big hexadecimal number'
For readers finding this in the archives, this question also appears here:
Hi,
GIN partial match appears to be broken after fast scan. Following simple
test case raises assertion failure.
create extension btree_gin;
create table test as (select id, random() as val from
generate_series(1,100) id);
create index test_idx on test using gin (val);
vacuum test;
select *
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 09:13:47PM +0800, Olivier Lalonde wrote:
I was wondering if there would be any way to do the following in PostgreSQL:
UPDATE cryptotable SET work = work + 'some big hexadecimal number'
where work is an unsigned 256 bit integer. Right now my column is a
character
Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com writes:
On 10 April 2014 01:13, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
However, I still believe the best approach at this point is to just work
on making int4_avg_accum faster. I still see no principal reason what it
has to be noticeably slower - the only
Ok, So I've hacked on this a bit. Below is a test case showing the
problems I've found.
1) It isn't using the newline and wrap indicators or dividing lines.
2) The header is not being displayed properly when it contains a newline.
I can hack in the newline and wrap indicators but the header
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
GIN partial match appears to be broken after fast scan. Following simple
test case raises assertion failure.
create extension btree_gin;
create table test as (select id, random() as val from
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 09:27:11AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:02 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Well, that's sorta my concern. I mean, right now
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:23:40PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
What might make more sense is this:
if ((tableinfo.relkind == 'r' || tableinfo.relkind == 'm')
/*
* No need to display default values; we already display a
* REPLICA IDENTITY
On 6 February 2014 18:21, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Jeremy Harris j...@wizmail.org wrote:
The attached patch replaces the existing siftup method for heapify with
a siftdown method. Tested with random integers it does 18% fewer
compares and takes
If it's conditional I think when it matches a guc is too hard for users
to use.
I think say nothing if oids are off and say something of their on would
be fine. It would result in clutter for users which oids on by default but
that's a non default setting.
And the consequences of having oids on
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 01:05:32PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
If it's conditional I think when it matches a guc is too hard for users to
use.
Yes, we gave up on having the OID display match the GUC; we just
display something if and only if it oids are present.
Robert is talking about the
On 10 April 2014 15:18, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com writes:
On 10 April 2014 01:13, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
However, I still believe the best approach at this point is to just work
on making int4_avg_accum faster. I still see no principal
Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com writes:
On 10 April 2014 15:18, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
This idea of a separate firsttrans function is interesting but perhaps
orthogonal to the current patch. Also, I don't quite understand how
it would work for aggregates with null
On 10 April 2014 19:04, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com writes:
On 10 April 2014 15:18, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
This idea of a separate firsttrans function is interesting but perhaps
orthogonal to the current patch. Also, I don't quite
Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com writes:
On 10 April 2014 19:04, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
What about names for the invertible-aggregate infrastructure?
I'm tempted to prefix inv to all the existing names, but then
invsfunc means the alternate forward function ... can we use
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
GIN partial match appears to be broken after fast scan. Following simple
test case raises assertion failure.
On 10 April 2014 19:54, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com writes:
On 10 April 2014 19:04, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
What about names for the invertible-aggregate infrastructure?
I'm tempted to prefix inv to all the existing names, but then
Hi.
Thanks for your tests.
I've fixed problem with headers, but got new one with data.
I'll try to solve it tomorrow.
2014-04-10 18:45 GMT+04:00 Greg Stark st...@mit.edu:
Ok, So I've hacked on this a bit. Below is a test case showing the
problems I've found.
1) It isn't using the newline
On 04/10/2014 10:00 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com
wrote:
GIN partial match appears to be broken after fast scan. Following
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 02:06:28PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Where are we on this? It seem odd that psql sends /* */ comments to the
server, but not -- comments. Should this be documented or changed?
I am confused why changing the behavior would affect the regression test
output as --
On Apr10, 2014, at 02:13 , Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
On Apr9, 2014, at 23:17 , Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
On Apr9, 2014, at 21:35 , Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
A quick test says that avg(int4)
is about five percent slower than sum(int4), so that's the kind of hit
we'd
Can someone with Windows expertise comment on whether this should be
applied?
---
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:44:33PM +0100, Christian Ullrich wrote:
Hello all,
when pg_ctl start is used to run PostgreSQL in a console
Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com writes:
I was imagining that firsttrans would only be passed the first value
to be aggregated, not any previous state, and that it would be illegal
to specify both an initcond and a firsttrans function.
The forward transition function would only be called
On Apr10, 2014, at 21:34 , Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 April 2014 19:54, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
So if we go with that terminology, perhaps these names for the
new CREATE AGGREGATE parameters:
initfuncapplies to plain aggregation, mutually exclusive
Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org writes:
I still think you're getting ahead of yourselves here. The number of
aggregates which benefit from this is tiny SUM(int2,int4) and maybe
BOOL_{AND,OR}. And in the SUM(int2,int4) case *only* on 64-bit archs -
for the others, the state type is already
On Apr11, 2014, at 00:07 , Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org writes:
I still think you're getting ahead of yourselves here. The number of
aggregates which benefit from this is tiny SUM(int2,int4) and maybe
BOOL_{AND,OR}. And in the SUM(int2,int4) case *only* on
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:45:29AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
I am suggesting it for at least some other things. I'm rather aggrieved that
\d+ without argument shows you the size and the description/comment for every
table, but \d+ foo does not show you the size and description/comment of the
Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org writes:
My argument is that is costs us more complexity to duplicate everything
for the invertible case, *and* the result seems less flexible - not
from the POV of aggregate implementations, but from the POV of future
extensions.
[ shrug... ] You can argue against
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 01:10:35PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 01:05:32PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
If it's conditional I think when it matches a guc is too hard for users to
use.
Yes, we gave up on having the OID display match the GUC; we just
display something if
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
It also has changed the OID status to only display if it exists. One
question that came up with Robert is whether OID status should appear
for \d as well, now that is only shows up when present.
Yeah, I was wondering about that too. If part of the
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 07:58:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
It also has changed the OID status to only display if it exists. One
question that came up with Robert is whether OID status should appear
for \d as well, now that is only shows up when
On Apr11, 2014, at 01:30 , Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org writes:
As for evidence - have you looked at the patch I posted? I'd be very
interested to know if it removes the performance differences you saw.
(1) You can't really prove the absence of a performance
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com
wrote:
On 04/10/2014 10:52 AM, sachin kotwal wrote:
I executed given steps many times to produce this bug.
But still I unable to hit this bug.
I used attached scripts to produce this bug.
Can I get scripts to
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Can someone with Windows expertise comment on whether this should be
applied?
I tested the same in windows and it is working as specified.
The same background running server can be closed with ctrl+break command.
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 11:58:58AM +1000, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Can someone with Windows expertise comment on whether this should be
applied?
I tested the same in windows and it is working as specified.
The same
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 11:58:58AM +1000, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Can someone with Windows expertise comment on whether this should be
applied?
I
(2014/04/10 22:25), Tom Lane wrote:
Etsuro Fujita fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes:
(2014/04/10 0:08), Tom Lane wrote:
TBH I think that's barely the tip of the iceberg of cases where this
patch will get the wrong answer.
Also, I don't see it doing anything to check the ordering
of
Dean, Craig, all,
* Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
This is reflected in the change to the regression test output where,
in one of the tests, the ctids for the table to update are no longer
coming from the same table. I think a better approach is to push down
the rowmark into
pgmp is also worth mentioning here, and it's likely to be more efficient
than the numeric type or something you hack up yourself:
http://pgmp.projects.pgfoundry.org/
Best,
Leon
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:11 AM, k...@rice.edu k...@rice.edu wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 09:13:47PM +0800,
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:05:49AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
Ah, yes, good point. This is going to require backpatching then.
I also think so.
I think it's better to use check like below, just for matter of
consistency
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:05:49AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
Ah, yes, good point. This is going to require backpatching then.
I also think so.
Hi, sorry for the absense. I've been back.
Attached is the patch following the discussion below.
(2014/04/10 0:08), Tom Lane wrote:
TBH I think that's barely the tip of the iceberg of cases where this
patch will get the wrong answer.
Also, I don't see it doing anything to check the
# Sorry for accidentialy sending the previous mail unfinished.
## ...and I seem to have bombed uncertain files off out of my
## home directory by accident, too :(
=
Hi, sorry for the absense. I've been back.
Thank you for continuing this discussion.
Attached is the patch following the
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Can someone with Windows expertise comment on whether this should be
applied?
I don't think this is a complete fix, for example what about platform where
_CreateRestrictedToken() is not supported. For Example, the current
57 matches
Mail list logo
