Hi All,
- Patch got applied cleanly.
- Regression make check run fine.
- Patch covered the documentation changes
Here are few comments:
1) What the need of following change:
diff --git a/src/backend/storage/lmgr/lwlock.c
b/src/backend/storage/lmgr/lwlock.c
index bcec173..9fe6855 100644
---
FYI, patch v12 part 2 no longer applies cleanly.
Thanks. I rebased the patch set according to the latest master branch.
The attached v13 can be applied to the master.
--
NEC OSS Promotion Center / PG-Strom Project
KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com
-Original Message-
From:
2014-10-27 9:11 GMT+07:00 Ali Akbar the.ap...@gmail.com:
2014-10-27 1:38 GMT+07:00 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
Hi
My idea is using new ArrayBuilder optimized for building multidimensional
arrays with own State type. I think so casting to ArrayBuildState is base
of our problems,
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Thomas Munro mu...@ip9.org wrote:
postgres=# set enable_hashagg = false;
SET
Time: 0.302 ms
postgres=# explain select distinct a from foo;
┌─┐
│
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 04:38:39PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I realize there hasn't been much progress on this thread, but I wanted
to chime in to say I think our current partitioning implementation is
too heavy administratively, error-prone, and
Hi
I did some minor changes in code
* move tests of old or new builder style for array sublink out of main
cycles
* some API simplification of new builder - we should not to create
identical API, mainly it has no sense
Regards
Pavel Stehule
2014-10-27 8:12 GMT+01:00 Ali Akbar
Amit Langote wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 04:38:39PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I realize there hasn't been much progress on this thread, but I wanted
to chime in to say I think our current partitioning implementation is
too heavy administratively,
On 10/26/2014 11:47 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
After eyeballing the code for an hour or two, I think CREATE DATABASE
should be fine with performing only a 'partial checkpoint' on the
template database - calling FlushDatabaseBuffers and processing unlink
requests, as suggested by the comment in
Hi
I am sending a final review of this patch:
0. this patch implements null fields stripping. It does exactly what was
proposed and we would to have this feature in core. It is requested feature
for JSON types.
1. there is no problem with patch apply and with compilation - one warning
is fixed
2014-10-27 16:15 GMT+07:00 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
Hi
I did some minor changes in code
* move tests of old or new builder style for array sublink out of main
cycles
* some API simplification of new builder - we should not to create
identical API, mainly it has no sense
On 17/10/14 06:25, Michael Paquier wrote:
Two votes in favor of that from two committers sounds like a deal. Here
is an refreshed version of the patch introducing --snapshot from here,
after fixing a couple of things and adding documentation:
At 2014-09-25 22:41:18 +0200, and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-09-24 17:06:05 +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
1. Move the call to ResetUnloggedRelations(UNLOGGED_RELATION_INIT) to
earlier in StartupXLOG.
2. Inside that function, issue fsync()s for the main forks we create by
replication/slot.c and replication/logical/snapbuild.c use a CRC on the
physical slot and snapshot files. It uses the same algorithm as used
e.g. for the WAL. However, they are not doing the finalization step,
FIN_CRC32() on the calculated checksums. Not that it matters much, but
it's a bit
2014-10-27 11:20 GMT+01:00 Ali Akbar the.ap...@gmail.com:
2014-10-27 16:15 GMT+07:00 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
Hi
I did some minor changes in code
* move tests of old or new builder style for array sublink out of main
cycles
* some API simplification of new builder - we
To solve #1, we could redesign CREATE DATABASE so that replaying the
DBASE_CREATE record doesn't zap the old directory, and also doesn't copy
any files. We could instead just assume that if the transaction commits,
all the files have been copied and fsync'd already, like we assume that if
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 10/24/2014 01:24 PM, furu...@pm.nttdata.co.jp wrote:
Sorry, I'm going around in the circle. But I'd like to say again, I
don't think this is good idea. It prevents asynchronous
pg_receivexlog from fsyncing
On 10/27/2014 01:06 PM, Atri Sharma wrote:
To solve #1, we could redesign CREATE DATABASE so that replaying the
DBASE_CREATE record doesn't zap the old directory, and also doesn't copy
any files. We could instead just assume that if the transaction commits,
all the files have been copied
Hi,
I need to query master ip from hot_standby.
*pg_stat_replication* view only shows the slave replication status.
Is there any way to get *Master IP* from standby node apart from checking
*recovery.conf* file.
Thanks,
Sudalai
-
sudalai
--
View this message in context:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com
wrote:
On 10/27/2014 01:06 PM, Atri Sharma wrote:
To solve #1, we could redesign CREATE DATABASE so that replaying the
DBASE_CREATE record doesn't zap the old directory, and also doesn't copy
any files. We could
* Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote:
On 10/16/14 12:01 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
This started out as a request for a non-superuser to be able to review
the log files without needing access to the server.
I think that can be done with a security-definer function.
Of course it can be.
On 18 August 2014 09:05, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 08/17/2014 07:15 PM, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
2014-08-07 0:30 GMT+04:00 Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com:
* I'm getting two regression failures with this (opr_sanity and join).
opr_sanity failure
On 26 October 2014 10:42, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
Hi,
I reviewed index scan optimization patch, the following are the
observations.
- Patch applies cleanly.
- Compiles without warnings
- All regress tests are passed.
There is a good performance gain with the patch in almost all
On 20 August 2014 08:09, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 08/20/2014 03:35 AM, Vladislav Sterzhanov wrote:
Hi there, pg-Hackers!
Here I go with the patch which brings up the possibility to perform
nearest-neighbour searches on SP-GiSTs (as of now includes implementation
On 2014-10-27 06:29:33 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Amit Langote wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 04:38:39PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I realize there hasn't been much progress on this thread, but I wanted
to chime in to say I think our current
Hi,
Is there any way to change the *master* without restarting the *standby*
server.
Postgresql Documentation says,
--Recovery.conf file only read on the startup in standby mode. In that
file we specify the Masterip.
--If you want to change the master we need to change the
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
***
*** 358,363 handle_sigint(SIGNAL_ARGS)
--- 358,364
/* Send QueryCancel if we are processing a database query */
if (cancelConn != NULL)
{
+ inAbort = true;
if
On 2014-10-27 12:51:44 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
replication/slot.c and replication/logical/snapbuild.c use a CRC on the
physical slot and snapshot files. It uses the same algorithm as used e.g.
for the WAL. However, they are not doing the finalization step, FIN_CRC32()
on the
Dne 27 Říjen 2014, 10:47, Heikki Linnakangas napsal(a):
On 10/26/2014 11:47 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
After eyeballing the code for an hour or two, I think CREATE DATABASE
should be fine with performing only a 'partial checkpoint' on the
template database - calling FlushDatabaseBuffers and
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 10/23/2014 11:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
At least for master, we should consider changing the way the archiving
works so that we only archive WAL that was generated in the same server.
I.e. we should
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
Wow.
By the way, I became unable to login at all after wrongly setting
*_preload_libraries for all available users. Is there any releaf
measures for the situation? I think it's okay even if there's no
Thanks for weighing in, Noah.
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+tgmoy4glsxzk0tao29-ljtcuj0sl1xwcwq51xb-hfysgi...@mail.gmail.com
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20893.1393892...@sss.pgh.pa.us
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Andreas Karlsson andr...@proxel.se wrote:
Agreed.. But I think reducing the lock level of the secondary table is much
more important than doing the same for the primary table due to the case
where the secondary table is an existing table which is hit by a
IMHO writing all the data into a WAL would be the cleanest solution.
Also, what is a small database? I don't think a static value will work,
because the sweet spot between the current approach (forcing two
checkpoints) and writing everything in WAL depends on the amount of dirty
buffers
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Haribabu Kommi kommi.harib...@gmail.com writes:
Thanks for the details. I am sorry It is not proc_exit. It is the exit
callback functions that can cause problem.
The following is the callstack where the problem can happen, if
Dne 27 Říjen 2014, 13:50, Atri Sharma napsal(a):
IMHO writing all the data into a WAL would be the cleanest solution.
Also, what is a small database? I don't think a static value will work,
because the sweet spot between the current approach (forcing two
checkpoints) and writing everything
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:15 PM, sudalai sudala...@gmail.com wrote:
I need to query master ip from hot_standby.
*pg_stat_replication* view only shows the slave replication status.
Is there any way to get *Master IP* from standby node apart from checking
*recovery.conf* file.
That's the
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Rahila Syed rahilasye...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Please find the updated patch attached.
Thanks for updating the patch! Here are the comments.
The patch isn't applied to the master cleanly.
I got the following compiler warnings.
xlog.c:930: warning: ISO C90
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-10-27 12:51:44 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
replication/slot.c and replication/logical/snapbuild.c use a CRC on the
physical slot and snapshot files. It uses the same algorithm as used e.g.
for the WAL. However, they are not doing the
Hi,
I've previously posted a patch at
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20141010160020.GG6670%40alap3.anarazel.de
that reduces contention in StrategyGetBuffer() by making the clock sweep
lockless. Robert asked me to post it to a new thread; I originally
wrote it to see some other
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
On 10/27/2014 03:21 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Thinking about this a bit more, do we really need a full checkpoint? That
is a checkpoint of all the databases in the cluster? Why checkpointing the
source database is not enough?
A full checkpoint
On 2014-10-27 09:46:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
On 10/27/2014 03:21 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Thinking about this a bit more, do we really need a full checkpoint? That
is a checkpoint of all the databases in the cluster? Why checkpointing the
On 10/15/2014 03:54 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I checked a code, and I have only two small objection - a name
jsonb_object_two_arg is not good - maybe json_object_keys_values ?
It's consistent with the existing json_object_two_arg. In all cases I
think I kept the names the same except for
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote:
Attached is a patch to address the pg_cancel/terminate_backend and the
statistics info as discussed previously. It sounds like we're coming to
And I forgot the attachment, of course. Apologies.
Thanks,
Stephen
diff --git
All,
* Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote:
It would be weird if it were inconsistent: some things require role
membership, some things require SET ROLE. Try explaining that.
Attached is a patch to address the pg_cancel/terminate_backend and the
statistics info as discussed previously.
Hi!
Some fragment of code (src/backend/optimizer/path/costsize.c, lineno ~400):
/*
* Normal case: apply the Mackert and Lohman formula, and then
* interpolate between that and the correlation-derived result.
*/
pages_fetched =
Teodor Sigaev teo...@sigaev.ru writes:
if (indexonly)
pages_fetched = ceil(pages_fetched * (1.0 -
baserel-allvisfrac));
As I understand the code, index_pages_fetched() returns summary of page's
read
for index and heap together.
No. Costs for touching the index
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
Brightwell, Adam wrote:
If we were to make it consistent and use the old wording, what do you
think about providing an errhint as well?
Perhaps for example in slotfuncs.c#pg_create_physical_replication_stot:
errmsg - permission
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
[rhaas pgsql]$ patch -p1 ~/Downloads/20141023_pg_recvlogical_fixes.patch
patching file doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_recvlogical.sgml
Hunk #1
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Committed and back-patched to 9.4.
Thanks.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
No. Costs for touching the index were computed by the amcostestimate
function; this code is solely about estimating costs for touching the
heap.
I see. Thank you.
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru
WWW:
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
As I started looking at this, there are multiple other places where
these types of error messages occur (opclasscmds.c, user.c,
postinit.c, miscinit.c are just a few), not just around the changes in
this patch. If we change them in one
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The larger issue though is that even with both the above things fixed,
the TAP tests would still be an expensive no-op on the majority of
buildfarm members. AFAICT, I do not own a single machine on which the
current TAP
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote:
On 10/16/14 9:45 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
Alright, coming back to this, I have to ask- how are matviews different
from views
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
I don't care whether you actually generate index-paths or not, and in
fact I suspect it makes no sense to do so. But I do care that you do
a cost comparison between the available indexes and pick the one that
looks
On 10/27/2014 05:41 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The larger issue though is that even with both the above things fixed,
the TAP tests would still be an expensive no-op on the majority of
buildfarm members. AFAICT, I do not own a
On 10/27/2014 11:41 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The larger issue though is that even with both the above things fixed,
the TAP tests would still be an expensive no-op on the majority of
buildfarm members. AFAICT, I do not own a
On 10/09/2014 12:13 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-10-08 22:13:46 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
As far as I can tell, PostgreSQL's so-called CRC algorithm doesn't
correspond to any bit-by-bit CRC variant and polynomial. My math skills are
not strong enough to determine what the
On 10/27/2014 02:12 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 10/23/2014 11:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
At least for master, we should consider changing the way the archiving
works so that we only archive WAL that was
On 10/27/2014 03:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
On 10/27/2014 03:21 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Thinking about this a bit more, do we really need a full checkpoint? That
is a checkpoint of all the databases in the cluster? Why checkpointing the
source
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
On 10/27/2014 05:41 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Beyond all that, I have serious doubts about whether, even if we
eventually get these tests mostly working in most places, whether they
will actually catch any bugs.
The existing tests are not very
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Yeah. I think at the very least they should be removed from the
check-world and installcheck-world targets until this is sorted out.
+1 for doing that in the 9.4 branch; I'm surprised we've not already
heard bitching from packagers about how far we've
On 27 October 2014 15:55, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Commenting on one aspect of a patch doesn't imply agreement with
other aspects of the patch. Please don't put words into my mouth. I
haven't reviewed this patch in detail; I've only commented on specific
aspects of it as
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 27 October 2014 15:55, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Commenting on one aspect of a patch doesn't imply agreement with
other aspects of the patch. Please don't put words into my mouth. I
haven't reviewed
On 27 October 2014 17:44, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
I did a lot of copy-editing to the Wiki page yesterday. There are
actually few clear open items now:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/UPSERT#Open_Items
I've read this page.
Please do these things, both of which have been
Hi
2014-10-27 15:33 GMT+01:00 Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net:
On 10/15/2014 03:54 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I checked a code, and I have only two small objection - a name
jsonb_object_two_arg is not good - maybe json_object_keys_values ?
It's consistent with the existing
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
1. Take the specific docs that relate to the patch and put them in one
place, so that everybody can read and understand and agree the
behaviour of the patch. So that someone reading that can see *exactly*
what is being
Hackers,
I just realized that there is one thing we can't log currently:
transactions which last more than #ms. This is valuable diagnostic
information when looking for issues like causes of bloat and deadlocks.
I'd like it to be on the TODO list because it seems like part of a good
GSOC
On 27 October 2014 19:21, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Hackers,
I just realized that there is one thing we can't log currently:
transactions which last more than #ms. This is valuable diagnostic
information when looking for issues like causes of bloat and deadlocks.
I'd like it to
I happened to be looking at sinvaladt.c and noticed the loop added in
commit b4fbe392f8ff6ff1a66b488eb7197eef9e1770a4:
/*
* Now that the maxMsgNum change is globally visible, we give everyone
* a swift kick to make sure they read the newly added messages.
*
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I happened to be looking at sinvaladt.c and noticed the loop added in
commit b4fbe392f8ff6ff1a66b488eb7197eef9e1770a4:
/*
* Now that the maxMsgNum change is globally visible, we give everyone
* a
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
I think by far the biggest problem here is the
lack of attention to the design from others.
I find that attitude incredible.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
I think by far the biggest problem here is the
lack of attention to the design from others.
I find that attitude incredible.
What I mean is that
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Why could we not remove the hasMessages flags again, and change the
unlocked test
if (!stateP-hasMessages)
return 0;
into
if (stateP-nextMsgNum == segP-maxMsgNum
All,
I just ran through the patch giving it a good once over, some items to
address/consider/discuss:
* Trailing whitespace.
* Why are you making changes in foreigncmds.c? These seem like unnecessary
changes. I see that you are trying to consolidate but this refactor seems
potentially out of
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Why could we not remove the hasMessages flags again, and change the
unlocked test
if (!stateP-hasMessages)
return
On 27.10.2014 17:24, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 10/27/2014 03:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
On 10/27/2014 03:21 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Thinking about this a bit more, do we really need a full checkpoint?
That
is a checkpoint of all the databases
All,
Attached is a patch with minor updates/corrections.
-Adam
--
Adam Brightwell - adam.brightw...@crunchydatasolutions.com
Database Engineer - www.crunchydatasolutions.com
diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/Makefile b/src/backend/catalog/Makefile
new file mode 100644
index b257b02..8cdc5cb
***
Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz writes:
That being said, our CREATE DATABASE docs currently say this
Although it is possible to copy a database other than template1 by
specifying its name as the template, this is not (yet) intended as
a general-purpose COPY DATABASE facility. The
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to wrote:
Hi,
Here's the rebased patch -- as promised -- in a v7.
Hi Marko,
Using the same script as for the memory leak, I am getting seg faults using
this patch.
24425 2014-10-27 15:42:11.819 PDT LOG: server process (PID
On 10/27/2014 05:58 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 27.10.2014 17:24, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 10/27/2014 03:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
On 10/27/2014 03:21 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Thinking about this a bit more, do we really need a full
On 2014-10-27 18:57:27 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/27/2014 05:58 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 27.10.2014 17:24, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I'm also thinking that for wal_level=archive and large databases, this
won't really eliminate the checkpoint as it will likely generate enough
WAL
I think the way this should work is that if you create a DIRALIAS, then
the COPY command should refer to it by logical name, e.g.,
CREATE DIRALIAS dumpster AS '/tmp/trash';
COPY mytable TO dumpster;
If you squint a bit, this is the same as a tablespace. Maybe those two
concepts could be
On 10/27/2014 07:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-10-27 18:57:27 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/27/2014 05:58 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 27.10.2014 17:24, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I'm also thinking that for wal_level=archive and large databases, this
won't really eliminate the
On 10/27/14 7:27 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote:
On 10/16/14 12:01 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
This started out as a request for a non-superuser to be able to review
the log files without needing access to the server.
I think that can be done with a
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-10-27 18:57:27 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Notwithstanding what the docs say, I have seen CREATE DATABASE used plenty
of times, and quite effectively, to clone databases. I don't think making it
do twice the IO in the general case is going
On 27 October 2014 20:24, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
I think by far the biggest problem here is the
lack of attention to the design from
* Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote:
On 10/27/14 7:27 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote:
On 10/16/14 12:01 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
This started out as a request for a non-superuser to be able to review
the log files without needing access to the
On 28.10.2014 00:06, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/27/2014 07:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-10-27 18:57:27 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/27/2014 05:58 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 27.10.2014 17:24, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I'm also thinking that for wal_level=archive and large
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Let's see if we can link these two thoughts.
1. You think the biggest problem is the lack of attention to the design.
2. I keep asking you to put the docs in a readable form.
If you can't understand the link between
Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz writes:
So maybe we shouldn't cling to the WAL-logging approach too much. Maybe
Heikki's idea from to abandon the full checkpoint and instead assume
that once the transaction commits, all the files were fsynced OK. Of
couse, this will do nothing about the replay
super
I tested last version and I have not any objections.
1. We would to have this feature - it is long time number of our ToDo List
2. Proposal and design of multidimensional aggregation is clean and nobody
has objection here.
3. There is zero impact on current implementation. From
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
- 0001-ALTER-ROLE-CURRENT_USER_v2.patch - the patch.
+RoleId:CURRENT_USER{ $$ = current_user;}
+ | USER { $$ =
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 08:24:15AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+tgmoy4glsxzk0tao29-ljtcuj0sl1xwcwq51xb-hfysgi...@mail.gmail.com
Tomas Vondra wrote
I mean, when we use database A as a template, why do we need to checkpoint
B, C, D and F too? (Apologies if this is somehow obvious, I'm way out of
my comfort zone in this part of the code.)
IIUC you have to checkpoint the whole cluster because it is not possible to
do
---
doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml | 23 +++
doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml | 11 +-
doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml| 43 --
doc/src/sgml/plpgsql.sgml | 20 ++-
doc/src/sgml/postgres-fdw.sgml| 8 ++
doc/src/sgml/ref/create_index.sgml|
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Neither of those messages seem to me to bear on this point. AFAICS,
the unlocked hasMessages test has a race condition, which the comment
just above it argues isn't a problem in
Tom Lane-2 wrote
Tomas Vondra lt;
tv@
gt; writes:
So maybe we shouldn't cling to the WAL-logging approach too much. Maybe
Heikki's idea from to abandon the full checkpoint and instead assume
that once the transaction commits, all the files were fsynced OK. Of
couse, this will do nothing
* Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote:
I think the way this should work is that if you create a DIRALIAS, then
the COPY command should refer to it by logical name, e.g.,
CREATE DIRALIAS dumpster AS '/tmp/trash';
COPY mytable TO dumpster;
You'd have to be able to specify the filename
Marti Raudsepp wrote
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
lt;
horiguchi.kyotaro@.co
gt; wrote:
But should ALTER USER ALL and ALTER ROLE ALL really do the same thing?
A user is a role with the LOGIN option. Every user is a role, but not
every role is a user. I suspect that
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
That argument is nonsense. I complained about a lack of close analysis,
but with close analysis I think this is perfectly safe; or at least no
less safe than what's there now, with its not terribly bulletproof
assumption that
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
