Hello Robert,
I really, really wish you'd stop arguing against the patch to allow
merging of pgbench logs in this basis.
Hmmm. I'm lost. I thought that discussing how to best implement a feature
was part of reviewing a patch.
There may or may not be other reasons to reject that patch, but
Michael Paquier wrote:
Well, I am not sure about that... But reading this thread changing the
default rounding sounds unwelcome. So it may be better to just put in
words the rounding method used now in the docs, with perhaps a mention
that this is not completely in-line with the SQL spec if
When doing my experiments with bucket split ([1]), I noticed a comment that
_hash_getnewbuf should not be called concurrently. However, there's no
synchronization of calls from _hash_splitbucket in HEAD. I could reproduce
such concurrent calls using gdb (multiple bucket splits in progress at a
On 03/29/2015 04:30 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
On 03/29/2015 03:25 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
On 03/28/2015 09:36 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
Thanks! Do you know if it is possible to add index-only scan support to
range indexes? I have never looked at those and do not know if they are
lossy.
On 3/30/15 6:45 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-03-30 09:33:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
Another thing to note here is that during extension we are extending
just one block, won't it make sense to increment it by some bigger
number (we can even take input from user for the same where user
Antonin Houska a...@cybertec.at writes:
When doing my experiments with bucket split ([1]), I noticed a comment that
_hash_getnewbuf should not be called concurrently. However, there's no
synchronization of calls from _hash_splitbucket in HEAD. I could reproduce
such concurrent calls using gdb
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
The reason of this problem is that above tab-completion is executing
query [1] which contains subplan for the funnel node and currently
we don't have capability (enough infrastructure) to support execution
of subplans
On 30 March 2015 at 01:08, David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 December 2014 at 02:48, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
David, if you can update your patch with some docs to explain the
behaviour, it looks complete enough to think about committing it in
early January, to
On 2015-03-30 09:33:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
In the past, I have observed in one of the Write-oriented tests that
backend's have to flush the pages by themselves many a times, so
in above situation that can lead to more severe bottleneck.
Yes.
I've prototyped solving this for heap
Hello hackers,
I've tried my luck on pgsql-bugs before, with no success, so I report these
problem here.
The documentation mentions the following limits for sizes:
Maximum Field Size 1 GB
Maximum Row Size1.6 TB
However, it seems like rows bigger than 1GB can't be COPYed out:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:00 AM, Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr wrote:
I really, really wish you'd stop arguing against the patch to allow
merging of pgbench logs in this basis.
Hmmm. I'm lost. I thought that discussing how to best implement a feature
was part of reviewing a patch.
Of
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I figured out the problem. That fix only helps in the case
where the postmaster noticed the new registration previously but
didn't start the worker, and then later notices the termination.
What's much more
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
Apart from that I have moved the Initialization of dsm segement from
InitNode phase to ExecFunnel() (on first execution) as per suggestion
from Robert. The main idea is that as it creates large shared memory
segment,
* David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net) wrote:
On 3/30/15 6:45 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-03-30 09:33:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
Another thing to note here is that during extension we are extending
just one block, won't it make sense to increment it by some bigger
number (we can even
* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote:
There have been numerous threads on replacing our MD5 authentication
method, so I started hacking on that to see what it might look like.
Just to be clear, this is 9.6 material. Attached is a WIP patch
series that adds support for SCRAM. There's no
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Just had a longer chat with Peter about this patch.
It was a very useful chat. Thanks for making yourself available to do it.
* Not a fan of the heap flags usage, the reusage seems sketch to me
* Explain should show
On 3/25/15 10:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com writes:
When running autoconf from the root tree, autom4te.cache/ is
automatically generated.
Wouldn't it make sense to add an entry in .gitignore for that?
Personally, I don't want such a thing, as then I would
On 3/27/15 5:15 AM, Vladimir Borodin wrote:
Hi all.
I have described [0] a problem with delaying replicas after vacuuming a
relation with big btree index. It stucks in replaying WAL record of
type XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM like that (with lastBlockVacuumed 0):
rmgr: Btree len (rec/tot): 20/
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On 3/25/15 1:32 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Well, I have no other cases than ones of the type mentioned upthread,
and honestly I am fine as long as we do not apply maths to a version
string. So attached is a patch that
On 3/27/15 2:23 PM, FabrÃzio de Royes Mello wrote:
Hi all,
I'm tweaking some autovacuum settings in a table with high write usage
but with ALTER TABLE .. SET ( .. ) this task was impossible, so I did a
catalog update (pg_class) to change reloptions.
Maybe it's a stupid doubt, but why we need
On 3/27/15 3:01 AM, Ravi Kiran wrote:
I have written a C program which reads from 3 files(Each file is table
having 2 columns and thousands of rows).The program is used to join
those 3 tables and the algorithm which I have written will work only for
those 3 files. Now I want to test this program
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 05:35:29PM -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 3/26/15 5:26 PM, David Fetter wrote:
+ * Note: Non-positive years are take to be BCE.
s/take/taken/
Good point. Next patch attached.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter da...@fetter.org http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On 3/25/15 10:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com writes:
When running autoconf from the root tree, autom4te.cache/ is
automatically generated.
Wouldn't it make sense to add an entry in .gitignore for that?
Personally, I
On 3/26/15 5:26 PM, David Fetter wrote:
+* Note: Non-positive years are take to be BCE.
s/take/taken/
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To
On 3/25/15 1:32 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Well, I have no other cases than ones of the type mentioned upthread,
and honestly I am fine as long as we do not apply maths to a version
string. So attached is a patch that adds VERSION_NUM in
Makefile.global.
How would you make use of this in an
Hello, I had a question that whether a change of some GUC
parameter needs restart or not and similar questions come every
now and then.
As shown below, descriptions about GUC context is surely put
there but I believe the average reader of the document doesn't
recognize that clearly while looking
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On 3/30/15 6:29 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net
mailto:pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On 3/25/15 1:32 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Well, I have no
27 matches
Mail list logo
