Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

2014-09-12 Thread Amit Kapila
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Dilip kumar wrote: > On 11 September 2014 10:21, Amit kapila Wrote, > >I don't think currently such a limitation is mentioned in docs, > > >however I think we can update the docs at below locations: > >1. In description of pg_start_backup in below page: > > http://

Re: [HACKERS] Suspicious check (src/backend/access/gin/gindatapage.c)

2014-09-12 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 09/12/2014 11:38 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Now that the logic is fixed, I hope we won't get complaints that the indexes are bigger, if you fill a table by appending to the end. I wonder if we should aim at an even more uneven split; the default fillfactor for B-trees is 90%, for example. I

Re: [HACKERS] Suspicious check (src/backend/access/gin/gindatapage.c)

2014-09-12 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 09/12/2014 03:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Gaetano Mendola wrote: At line 650 I can read: if ((leaf->lsize - segsize) - (leaf->lsize - segsize) < BLCKSZ / 4) break; I believe one of the two should be leaf->rsize Yes this condition is broken. S

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

2014-09-12 Thread Dilip kumar
On 11 September 2014 10:21, Amit kapila Wrote, >I don't think currently such a limitation is mentioned in docs, >however I think we can update the docs at below locations: >1. In description of pg_start_backup in below page: >http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/functions-admin.html#FUNCTI

Re: [HACKERS] Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW

2014-09-12 Thread Etsuro Fujita
(2014/09/12 16:03), Albe Laurenz wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Stephen Frost writes: I have to admit that, while I applaud the effort made to have this change only be to postgres_fdw, I'm not sure that having the update/delete happening during the Scan phase and then essentially no-op'ing the ExecFor

Re: [HACKERS] Incorrect initialization of sentPtr in walsender.c

2014-09-12 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 09/12/2014 03:17 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: In walsender.c, sentPtr is initialized as follows: static XLogRecPtr sentPtr = 0; Isn't that incorrect and shouldn't we use InvalidXLogRecPtr instead? Actually by looking more around I found

Re: [HACKERS] inherit support for foreign tables

2014-09-12 Thread Etsuro Fujita
(2014/09/11 20:51), Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 09/11/2014 02:30 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: So, should I split the patch into the two? Yeah, please do. OK, Will do. Thanks, Best regards, Etsuro Fujita -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to

Re: [HACKERS] Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW

2014-09-12 Thread Albe Laurenz
Tom Lane wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: >> I have to admit that, while I applaud the effort made to have this >> change only be to postgres_fdw, I'm not sure that having the >> update/delete happening during the Scan phase and then essentially >> no-op'ing the ExecForeignUpdate/ExecForeignDelete i

<    1   2