Andrew Dunstan wrote:
OK, here is a new patch version that
* uses find_coercion_path() to find the cast function if any, as
discussed elsewhere
* removes calls to getTypeOutputInfo() except where required
* honors a cast to json only for rendering both json and jsonb
* adds
On 8 December 2014 at 11:46, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
* ideally we'd like to be able to differentiate the types of usage.
which then allows the user to control the level of compression
depending upon the type of action. My first cut at what those settings
should be are
On 12/05/2014 05:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
[ reviving a very old thread ]
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
For example, maybe we could keep track of counts of snapshots removed
since the last xmin
Hello all,
We experienced some casting issues with domains. We experienced the
problem while querying the information_schema btw, but here is a simpler
test case :
postgres=# create table test1 (a text);
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# insert into test1 select generate_series(1,10);
INSERT 0 10
On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 10:00 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
I thought the point of INSERT ... ON CONFLICT update was so that you
didn't have to care if it was a new row or not?
If you do care, it seems like it makes more sense to do your own INSERTs
and UPDATEs, as Django currently does.
Django
On 12/05/2014 08:03 PM, David Rowley wrote:
On 2 December 2014 at 15:36, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com
mailto:cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 12/01/2014 09:51 PM, Marco Nenciarini wrote:
I think this is a leftover, as you don't use elog afterwards.
Good catch, fixed.
(2014/12/08 15:17), Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com
mailto:n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Does this inheritance patch add any
atomicity
problem that goes away when one breaks up the inheritance hierarchy and
UPDATEs each table
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 4:56 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
I don't immediately see the problem either, but I have to say that
grovelling through all the resource owners seems ugly anyway. Resource
owners are not meant to be traversed like that. And there could be a lot of
Hi,
The pg_recvlogical docs was rewritten but someone forgot to tweak the
help description. It is a bit late in the 9.4 cycle but let be consistent.
Regards,
--
Euler Taveira Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/
PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e
Michael,
This work will certainly continue to be pursued. If a simple move is
possible/acceptable, then I think that would be the best option. I can
handle that as it would appear that I am capable of moving it, if that is
acceptable.
Yes please. Actually I could have done it, just
Thomas Reiss thomas.re...@dalibo.com writes:
postgres=# explain select * from test2 where a='toto';
QUERY PLAN
--
Seq Scan on test1 (cost=0.00..1693.00 rows=500 width=5)
Filter: (((a)::tstdom)::text =
Hello.
As of now, the only way to restore database options and ACLs is to use
pg_dumpall without the globals options. The often recommended pg_dumpall -g +
individual dumps of the target databases doesn't restore those.
Since pg_dump/pg_restore offer the ability to create the database, it
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, if an alias is used, and you refer to an attribute using a
non-alias name (i.e. the original table name), then you'll already get
an error
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
My radical proposal therefore would have been to embrace this
inconsistency and get rid of PGC_BACKEND and PGC_SU_BACKEND altogether,
relying on users interpreting the parameter names to indicate that
changing them later
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
This causes creation DDL is checked if it is used in the regression
database, but what about ALTER and DROP? pg_dump doesn't issue those,
except in special cases like inheritance.
The proposed testing mechanism should
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Just that that's the case in which it seems useful to give a hint.
I think it's very possible that the wrong alias may be provided by the
user, and that we should consider that when providing a hint. Besides,
considering
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 12:13 AM, David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com wrote:
It's bare-bones core support for allowing aggregate states to be merged
together with another aggregate state. I would imagine that if a query such
as:
SELECT MAX(value) FROM bigtable;
was run, then a series of
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 1:50 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
I think we have access to this information in planner (RelOptInfo - pages),
if we want, we can use that to eliminate the small relations from
parallelism, but question is how big relations do we want to consider
for
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
I think it's very possible that the wrong alias may be provided by the
user, and that we should consider that when providing a hint.
Note that the existing mechanism (the mechanism that I'm trying to
improve) only ever shows
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
For my 2c, I'd like to see it support exactly what the SeqScan node
supports and then also what Foreign Scan supports. That would mean we'd
then be able to push filtering down to the workers which would be great.
Even
On 12/08/2014 04:21 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
OK, here is a new patch version that
* uses find_coercion_path() to find the cast function if any, as
discussed elsewhere
* removes calls to getTypeOutputInfo() except where required
* honors a cast to json only
All,
Pardon me for jumping into this late. In general, I like Alvaro's
approach. However, I wanted to list the major shortcomings of the
existing replication system (based on complaints by PGX's users and on
IRC) and compare them to Alvaro's proposed implementation to make sure
that enough of
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess you could list or hash partition on multiple columns, too.
How would you distinguish values in list partition for multiple
columns? I mean for range partition, we are sure there will
be either one value for
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Amit Langote
langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
So just to clarify, first and last destinations are considered defined if
you have something like:
...
PARTITION p1 VALUES LESS THAN 10
PARTITION p2 VALUES BETWEEN 10 AND 20
PARTITION p3 VALUES GREATER THAN
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, I don't feel we should not provide anyway to take dump
for individual partition but not at level of independent table.
May be something like --table table_name
--partition partition_name.
In general, I think we
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
* parameter should be SUSET - it doesn't *need* to be set only at
server start since all records are independent of each other
Why not USERSET? There's no point in trying to prohibit users from
doing things that will
On 2014-12-08 14:09:19 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
records, just fpis. There is no evidence that we even want to compress
other record types, nor that our compression mechanism is effective at
doing so. Simple = keep name as compress_full_page_writes
Quite right.
I don't really agree with
On 12/08/2014 11:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I guess I'm in disagreement with you - and, perhaps - the majority on
this point. I think that ship has already sailed: partitions ARE
tables. We can try to make it less necessary for users to ever look
at those tables as separate objects, and I
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-12-08 14:09:19 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
records, just fpis. There is no evidence that we even want to compress
other record types, nor that our compression mechanism is effective at
doing so. Simple = keep
On 2014-12-08 14:05:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, I don't feel we should not provide anyway to take dump
for individual partition but not at level of independent table.
May be something like --table table_name
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 12/08/2014 11:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I guess I'm in disagreement with you - and, perhaps - the majority on
this point. I think that ship has already sailed: partitions ARE
tables. We can try to make it less necessary
In the past, building under MinGW produced so many warnings that I never
bothered to read them.
Now most of them have been removed, so the ones that are left might be
worth reporting.
Using gcc.exe (GCC) 4.6.2 on REL9_4_STABLE
eadd80c08ddfc485db84b9af7cca54a0d50ebe6d I get:
mingwcompat.c:60:1:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I guess I'm in disagreement with you - and, perhaps - the majority on
this point. I think that ship has already sailed: partitions ARE
tables. We can try to make it less necessary for users to ever look
at those
On 2014-10-30 07:55:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
But if it is, then how about
adding a flag that is 4 bytes wide or less alongside bgwriterLatch,
and just checking the flag instead of checking bgwriterLatch itself?
On 2014-12-08 14:48:50 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I guess I'm in disagreement with you - and, perhaps - the majority on
this point. I think that ship has already sailed: partitions ARE
tables. We can try to make it
On 12/08/2014 11:40 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I don't thing its feasible to drop inheritance partitioning at this
point; too many user exploit a lot of peculiarities of that system which
wouldn't be supported by any other system. So any new partitioning
system we're talking about would be *in
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I don't think that's mutually exclusive with the idea of
partitions-as-tables. I mean, you can add code to the ALTER TABLE
path that says if (i_am_not_the_partitioning_root) ereport(ERROR, ...)
wherever you want.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
I think any new partitioning system should keep the good things about
the existing system, of which there are some, and not try to reinvent
the wheel. The yard stick for a new system shouldn't be is this
different enough?
On 12/08/2014 09:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
I still think that just compressing the whole record if it's above a
certain size is going to be better than compressing individual
parts. Michael argued thta that'd be complicated because of the varying
size of the required 'scratch space'. I don't
On 12/6/14, 5:21 PM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
Yes please. We have other contrib modules that exist as tests, so this
seems reasonable to me.
I can't improve the docs without the example code. Is that available now?
Please wait for a few days. The ctidscan module is not adjusted for the
latest
On 12/7/14, 6:16 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 20 October 2014 at 10:57, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
Currently, a non-freeze vacuum will punt on any page it can't get a cleanup
lock on, with no retry. Presumably this should be a rare occurrence, but I
think it's bad that we just
On 12/8/14, 9:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
The short answer is that SQL domains are not zero-cost type aliases.
Perhaps there would be value in having a feature that*is* a a zero-cost
alias, but it wouldn't be a domain.
Note that you can actually re-use the support functions of one data type to
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 12/08/2014 09:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
I still think that just compressing the whole record if it's above a
certain size is going to be better than compressing individual
parts. Michael argued thta that'd
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Adam Brightwell
adam.brightw...@crunchydatasolutions.com wrote:
Michael,
This work will certainly continue to be pursued. If a simple move is
possible/acceptable, then I think that would be the best option. I can
handle that as it would appear that I am
On 12/8/14, 1:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Besides, I haven't really seen anyone propose something that sounds
like a credible alternative. If we could make partition objects
things that the storage layer needs to know about but the query
planner doesn't need to understand, that'd be maybe worth
On 12/8/14, 12:26 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
4. Creation Locking Problem
high probability of lock pile-ups whenever a new partition is created on
demand due to multiple backends trying to create the partition at the
same time.
Not Addressed?
Do users actually try and create new partitions during
On 9 December 2014 at 04:09, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
* parameter should be SUSET - it doesn't *need* to be set only at
server start since all records are independent of each other
Why not USERSET?
On 9 December 2014 at 04:21, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-12-08 14:09:19 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
records, just fpis. There is no evidence that we even want to compress
other record types, nor that our compression mechanism is effective at
doing so. Simple = keep
On 9 December 2014 at 06:28, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
On 12/7/14, 6:16 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
What I'm more interested in is what you plan to do with the
information once we get it?
The assumption that skipping blocks is something bad is strange. I
added it because VACUUM
On 12/08/2014 02:12 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 12/8/14, 12:26 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
4. Creation Locking Problem
high probability of lock pile-ups whenever a new partition is created on
demand due to multiple backends trying to create the partition at the
same time.
Not Addressed?
Do users
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Adding on top of that a couple of things cleaned up, like docs and
typos, and I got the patch attached. Let's have a committer have a
look a it now, I am marking that as Ready for Committer.
For the archives, this
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Euler Taveira eu...@timbira.com.br wrote:
Hi,
The pg_recvlogical docs was rewritten but someone forgot to tweak the
help description. It is a bit late in the 9.4 cycle but let be consistent.
Yeah, that makes sense. +1 for making docs consistent on master. For
On 12/8/14 12:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
My radical proposal therefore would have been to embrace this
inconsistency and get rid of PGC_BACKEND and PGC_SU_BACKEND altogether,
relying on users interpreting the parameter
On 12/08/2014 09:19 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
- Use faster, higher precision timer API GetSystemTimeAsFileTime on windows
This is now committed.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services
--
Sent via
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On 12/8/14 12:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
My radical proposal therefore would have been to embrace this
inconsistency and get rid of PGC_BACKEND and PGC_SU_BACKEND altogether,
From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com]
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
I guess you could list or hash partition on multiple columns, too.
How would you distinguish values in list partition for multiple
columns? I mean for range
Let's take another crack at moving stuff out of contrib. Nobody likes
contrib. The task is only finding something that most people like better.
Last time this was attempted, the discussion got lost in exactly which
extensions are worthy enough to be considered official or something like
that.
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
Last time this was attempted, the discussion got lost in exactly which
extensions are worthy enough to be considered official or something like
that. I want to dodge that here by starting at the opposite end:
1. move programs to src/bin/
Here are the
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Amit Langote langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp
wrote:
From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com]
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
I guess you could list or hash partition on multiple columns, too.
How would
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 1:42 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
I don't think that's mutually exclusive with the idea of
partitions-as-tables. I mean, you can add code to the ALTER TABLE
path that says if
On 2014-12-08 22:50:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm not exactly convinced that we want to encourage packagers to include
either pg_test_fsync or pg_test_timing in standard packages. They are not
all that useful to ordinary users.
I actually think both are quite useful when setting up new
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 8 December 2014 at 11:46, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't really like those new names, but I'd prefer
wal_compression_level if we go down that road with 'none' as default
value. We may
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I actually think both are quite useful when setting up new systems to
quickly screen for problems. There still is a fairly large number of
virtualized systems with pretty much broken timing functions; and
checking
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 1:50 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think we have access to this information in planner (RelOptInfo -
pages),
if we want, we can use that to eliminate the small relations from
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
For my 2c, I'd like to see it support exactly what the SeqScan node
supports and then also what Foreign Scan supports. That would mean we'd
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Amit Langote langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp
wrote:
From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com]
I don't understand. If you want to range partition on columns (a, b),
you say
2014-12-07 15:07 GMT+01:00 Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com:
On 12/07/2014 02:03 PM, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
Hi,
I've been reading the FSM README file lately
(src/backend/storage/freespace/README), and I'm puzzled by one of the
graph
(the binary tree structure of an FSM file).
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Adding on top of that a couple of things cleaned up, like docs and
typos, and I got the patch attached. Let's have a committer have
68 matches
Mail list logo
