On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
3.
I find existing comments okay, is there a need to
Hello,
a psycopg user is reporting [1] that the library is not marking the
connection as closed and/or bad after certain errors, such as a
connection timeout. He is emulating the error by closing the
connection fd (I don't know if the two conditions result in the same
effect, but I'll stick to
Hi all,
In the documentation of pg_recvlogical here
(http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/app-pgrecvlogical.html),
there is the following sentence:
Create a new logical replication slot with the name specified in
--slot, using the output plugin --plugin, then exit.
Actually that's not
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Gregory Smith gregsmithpg...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 9/16/14, 8:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I think the main reason for slight difference is that
when the size of shared buffers is almost same as data size, the number
of buffers it needs from clock sweep are very
On 09/22/2014 07:47 AM, Rajeev rastogi wrote:
I have observed a scope of considerable performance improvement in-case of
index by a very minor code change.
Consider the below schema:
create table tbl2(id1 int, id2 varchar(10), id3 int);
create index idx2 on tbl2(id2, id3);
Query as:
2014-09-22 10:42 GMT+04:00 Daniele Varrazzo daniele.varra...@gmail.com:
Hello,
a psycopg user is reporting [1] that the library is not marking the
connection as closed and/or bad after certain errors, such as a
connection timeout. He is emulating the error by closing the
connection fd (I
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Dmitriy Igrishin dmit...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-09-22 10:42 GMT+04:00 Daniele Varrazzo daniele.varra...@gmail.com:
[2] https://gist.github.com/dvarrazzo/065f343c95f8ea67cf8f
Why are you using close() instead of PQfinish()?
Because I'm testing for an error,
2014-09-22 11:35 GMT+04:00 Daniele Varrazzo daniele.varra...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Dmitriy Igrishin dmit...@gmail.com
wrote:
2014-09-22 10:42 GMT+04:00 Daniele Varrazzo daniele.varra...@gmail.com
:
[2] https://gist.github.com/dvarrazzo/065f343c95f8ea67cf8f
Why
On 9/22/14 9:45 AM, Dmitriy Igrishin wrote:
2014-09-22 11:35 GMT+04:00 Daniele Varrazzo daniele.varra...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Dmitriy Igrishin dmit...@gmail.com
wrote:
Why are you using close() instead of PQfinish()?
Because I'm testing for an error, please read my
2014-09-22 12:36 GMT+04:00 Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to:
On 9/22/14 9:45 AM, Dmitriy Igrishin wrote:
2014-09-22 11:35 GMT+04:00 Daniele Varrazzo daniele.varra...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Dmitriy Igrishin dmit...@gmail.com
wrote:
Why are you using close() instead of
On 2014-09-22 07:42:01 +0100, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
Hello,
a psycopg user is reporting [1] that the library is not marking the
connection as closed and/or bad after certain errors, such as a
connection timeout. He is emulating the error by closing the
connection fd (I don't know if the
On 9/22/14 10:57 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-09-22 07:42:01 +0100, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
Is this intentional? Is there a better way to check for a broken connection?
Note that the libpq code treats connection resets differently from
other, arbitrary, errors:
I.e. if the kernel returns
Hello All,
Well, from Rahila's point of view the patch is actually attached, but
she's posting from the Nabble interface, which mangles it and turns into
a link instead.
Yes.
but the end result is the
same: to properly submit a patch, you need to send an email to the
mailing list, not join
Hello,
Please find attached the patch to compress FPW.
Sorry I had forgotten to attach. Please find the patch attached.
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Rahila Syed
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014
On 22 September 2014 12:35, Heikki Linnakangas:
I have observed a scope of considerable performance improvement in-
case of index by a very minor code change.
Consider the below schema:
create table tbl2(id1 int, id2 varchar(10), id3 int); create index
idx2 on tbl2(id2, id3);
Query
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Pavan Deolasee pavan.deola...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi All,
While running some tests on REL9_2_STABLE branch, I saw an assertion
failure in syncrep.c. The stack trace looks like this:
Any comments on this? I see it very regularly during my pgbench tests.
Pavan,
* Pavan Deolasee (pavan.deola...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Pavan Deolasee pavan.deola...@gmail.com
wrote:
While running some tests on REL9_2_STABLE branch, I saw an assertion
failure in syncrep.c. The stack trace looks like this:
Any comments on this? I
* Rajeev rastogi (rajeev.rast...@huawei.com) wrote:
Thanks, I shall start to prepare a patch for this optimization and share in 1
or 2 days.
This sounded interesting to me also- please be sure to put it on the
open commitfest once you have posted the patch.
Thanks!
Both the documentation
(http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/app-postgres.html) and the
--help switch to postgres reference a -A switch to handle assertion
checking. Looking at the code, I don't see any entry for -A in the
getopt string and passing -A always fails with 'invalid option'
On 2014-09-22 08:43:02 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
Both the documentation
(http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/app-postgres.html) and the
--help switch to postgres reference a -A switch to handle assertion
checking. Looking at the code, I don't see any entry for -A in the
getopt
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
On 09/22/2014 07:47 AM, Rajeev rastogi wrote:
So my proposal is to skip the condition check on the first scan key
condition for every tuple.
The same happens in a single-column case. If you have a query like
SELECT * FROM tbl2 where id2
On 09/22/2014 04:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
On 09/22/2014 07:47 AM, Rajeev rastogi wrote:
So my proposal is to skip the condition check on the first scan key condition
for every tuple.
The same happens in a single-column case. If you have a
Daniele Varrazzo daniele.varra...@gmail.com writes:
a psycopg user is reporting [1] that the library is not marking the
connection as closed and/or bad after certain errors, such as a
connection timeout. He is emulating the error by closing the
connection fd
That seems like a completely
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-09-22 08:43:02 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
Both the documentation
(http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/app-postgres.html) and the
--help switch to postgres reference a -A switch to handle assertion
checking.
You're probably
On 2014-09-22 09:58:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-09-22 08:43:02 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
Both the documentation
(http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/app-postgres.html) and the
--help switch to postgres reference a -A switch to
While doing experiments with rather long FROM-lists, I looked closely at the
logic related to from_collapse_limit.
I noticed that - unlike join_collapse_limit - the from_collapse_limit does not
enforce maximum length of the top-level list. Shouldn't it do? Too long
FROM-list can obviously lead to
Antonin Houska a...@cybertec.at writes:
I noticed that - unlike join_collapse_limit - the from_collapse_limit does not
enforce maximum length of the top-level list. Shouldn't it do?
How would it do that? You want it to fail outright if there are more than
N tables? That seems unhelpful.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 4:31 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-09-12 14:44:48 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
What I like even less is that pg_control is actually marked as
DB_SHUTDOWNED due to
On 9/18/14 7:40 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
I fail to see why that is so much preferrable for you to passing
parameter to DO?
1) You need to think about unique names for functions
2) Doesn't work on HOT STANDBYs
3) Causes noticeable amount of catalog bloat
4) Is about a magnitude or two more
On 2014-09-22 15:46:48 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 9/18/14 7:40 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
I fail to see why that is so much preferrable for you to passing
parameter to DO?
1) You need to think about unique names for functions
2) Doesn't work on HOT STANDBYs
3) Causes noticeable
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-09-18 09:50:38 -0500, Michael Paquier wrote:
Do you see the difference between what your doc patch states and the
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I was trying to create event trigger inside DO statement inside an extension
SQL script and noticed that the new event trigger has empty evtevent field.
After some tinkering with gdb I found out that the memory context
On 09/19/2014 07:07 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
Tom: You mentioned earlier that your patch fixes some existing bugs.
What were they?
What I remember at the moment (sans caffeine) is that the routines for
assembling jsonb values out of field data
Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 09/17/2014 01:51 AM, Tapan Halani wrote:
Hello everyone..i am new to PostgreSQL project. I had prior experience
with sql+ , with oracle 11g database server. Kindly help me grasp more
about
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-09-22 15:46:48 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 9/18/14 7:40 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
I fail to see why that is so much preferrable for you to passing
parameter to DO?
1) You need to think about unique
Zhaomo,
* Zhaomo Yang (zhy...@cs.ucsd.edu) wrote:
You are right. Using unlogged table is a good idea. I'll try it out.
Thanks for your advice!
Happy to help. Another option would be to have a custom GUC for this
information. The issue we have with that currently is that it can be
set by
Hi,
I'm posting my reply to Stephen's mail at
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20140919163839.GH16422%40tamriel.snowman.net
in a new thread because I think it's a important discussion and many
people probably stopped following the RLS thread at some point.
On 2014-09-19 12:38:39 -0400,
On 22/09/14 22:58, Merlin Moncure wrote:
Meh. Those aren't comparable. TEMPORARY TABLES/INDEXES/... all live
beyond a single statement. What's being discussed here doesn't.
Even if that wasn't true, 'DO' doesn't involve changes to system
catalogs whereas temporary functions would. With a
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
This patch has been pushed in a clear violation of established policy.
Fundamental pieces of the patch have changed *after* the commitfest
started. And there wasn't a recent patch in the commitfest either - the
entry was
On 09/20/2014 06:24 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
At the moment there's some rememnants of support for borland CC. I don't
believe it's likely that any of it still works. I can't remember ever
seing a buildfarm animal running it either - not surprising it's ~15
years since the last release.
Since
On 2014-09-20 10:03:43 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 09/20/2014 09:24 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
At the moment there's some rememnants of support for borland CC. I don't
believe it's likely that any of it still works. I can't remember ever
seing a buildfarm animal running it either -
* Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
Yeah OK, fair point. Here are some tests that cover that code path.
I've also thrown in a test with prepared statements, although that
case was already working, it seemed worth checking.
Applied and backpatched, thanks!
Stephen
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-09-20 10:03:43 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I thought the Borland stuff was there only so we could build client
libraries for use with things like Delphi.
FWIW I got offlist reports of two not subscribed people that they simply
use the
On 09/22/2014 04:22 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I have no reason to doubt your version of events here (although
Stephen may wish to address what you've said - I'm basing that on his
tone elsewhere). I must ask, though: what do you propose to do about
it in this instance? He has been chastised.
Pavel,
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
true, sorry, I have a different wording in first design
fixed
Pushed, thanks!
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 09/23/2014 07:20 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
So, to me, DO vs CREATE FUNCTION has nothing to do with passing
arguments and/or returning data. It has to do with lifespan; single
call of the function body only, use DO, otherwise, create a function.
Actually same thing happened with the DO
Tomonari,
* Tomonari Katsumata (t.katsumata1...@gmail.com) wrote:
I'm thinking about a method which users get quick awareness it.
Now, it's okay not to change current behavior except non-zero value yields
a zero. A zero rounded down from non-zero gets an error.
I attached new patch.
This
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 09/22/2014 04:22 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I have no reason to doubt your version of events here (although
Stephen may wish to address what you've said - I'm basing that on his
tone elsewhere). I must ask, though:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
This patch has been pushed in a clear violation of established policy.
Fundamental pieces of the patch have changed *after* the commitfest
started.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
The CommitFests were never meant to restrict when a committer could
commit a patch. The point of the CFs was to give committers time *off*
from committing patches. If a committer wants to commit something
completely
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-09-18 09:50:38 -0500, Michael Paquier wrote:
Do
Fabien,
* Fabien COELHO (coe...@cri.ensmp.fr) wrote:
That's not really true. You can't really add abs(x) or hash(x) right
now because the current code only supports this syntax:
\set varname operand1 [ operator operand2 ]
There's no way to add support for a unary operator with that
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
* Tomonari Katsumata (t.katsumata1...@gmail.com) wrote:
I'm thinking about a method which users get quick awareness it.
Now, it's okay not to change current behavior except non-zero value yields
a zero. A zero rounded down from non-zero gets an error.
Hey Tom,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
* Tomonari Katsumata (t.katsumata1...@gmail.com) wrote:
I'm thinking about a method which users get quick awareness it.
Now, it's okay not to change current behavior except non-zero value yields
a
Robert Haas wrote
It's difficult to imagine a more flagrant violation of process than
committing a patch without any warning and without even *commenting*
on the fact that clear objections to commit were made on a public
mailing list. If that is allowed to stand, what can we assume other
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
This argument doesn't say anything much about which way to round for
values that are fractional but larger than the unit size. I'd probably
prefer a round away from zero behavior since that seems to be the most
Tom Lane-2 wrote
The case where this argument falls down is for special values, such as
where zero means something quite different from the smallest nonzero
value. Peter suggested upthread that we should redefine any GUC values
for which that is true, but (a) I think that loses on backwards
David G Johnston david.g.johns...@gmail.com writes:
Can you either change your mind back to this opinion you held last month or
commit something you find acceptable - its not like anyone would revert
something you commit... :)
Hey, am I not allowed to change my mind :-) ?
Seriously though,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Here's another proposal- how about we support a 'minimum-if-not-zero'
option for GUCs more generally, and then throw an error if the user sets
the value to a value below that minimum unless they explicitly use zero
(to indicate whatever the special
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
To clarify- we'll simply swap from (essentially) floor() to ceil() for
handling all GUC_with_unit to internal_unit conversions, document that,
and note it in the release notes as a possible behavior change and move
on.
Worksforme.
On Tuesday, September 23, 2014, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
David G Johnston david.g.johns...@gmail.com javascript:; writes:
Can you either change your mind back to this opinion you held last month
or
commit something you find acceptable - its not like anyone would revert
something
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
To clarify- we'll simply swap from (essentially) floor() to ceil() for
handling all GUC_with_unit to internal_unit conversions, document that,
and note it in the release notes as a possible behavior change and
David Johnston david.g.johns...@gmail.com writes:
My original concern was things that are rounded to zero now will not be in
9.5 if the non-error solution is chosen. The risk profile is extremely
small but it is not theoretically zero.
This is exactly the position I was characterizing as an
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Pavan,
* Pavan Deolasee (pavan.deola...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Pavan Deolasee
pavan.deola...@gmail.com
wrote:
While running some tests on REL9_2_STABLE branch, I saw an assertion
All,
I've been keeping an eye on tick as it failed a day-or-so ago and it
looks to be related to RLS. Using a local
CLFAGS=-DCLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS -DRANDOMIZE_ALLOCATED_MEMORY build, I
was able to see the regression tests failing in
check_role_for_policy() due to a pretty clear reset of
65 matches
Mail list logo
