Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
BRIN update is not quite right, however. brin_getinsertbuffer() can
initialize a page, but the caller might bail out without using the page and
WAL-logging the change. If that happens, the next update that uses the same
page will WAL-log the change but it will not
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: not tested
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:19 PM, dinesh kumar dineshkuma...@gmail.com
wrote:
Sorry for my unclear description about the proposal.
WITH PERMISSIVE is equal to our existing behavior. That is, chmod=644
on
the
I'm probably going, but my company supports this trip.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Contributors:
We are looking for one or more PostgreSQL contributors to travel to
Havana, Cuba, to present at the second pgDay Cuba. In order to
encourage this
Hm, well, I am not sure that we want to pay the overhead of
re-summarization every time we prune a single tuple from a block range.
That's going to make vacuum much slower, I assume (without measuring);
many page ranges are going to be re-summarized without this actually
changing the range.
On 2015-07-24 00:39, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
OK, so InitSampleScan for a function called at ExecInitSampleScan time
(which we might as well make optional), and then we'll use BeginSampleScan
for the function that gets the parameters. The restart/ReScan function
goes away since BeginSampleScan
Here is a proposal introducing some debugging infrastructure into the
core. The basic idea is to allow us to query the planner search space.
To so do, we can dump related information to csv files and use foreign
table to query them. So here I propose two foreign tables:
Sounds like a great
Nice to hear you again Jolly !
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:42 AM, Jolly Chen jo...@chenfamily.com wrote:
Hey everyone,
You have probably heard that Mike Stonebraker recently won the Turing
award. A recording of his award lecture is available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbGeKi6T6QI
On 2015-07-24 01:26, Petr Jelinek wrote:
On 2015-07-24 00:39, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
OK, so InitSampleScan for a function called at ExecInitSampleScan time
(which we might as well make optional), and then we'll use
BeginSampleScan
for the function that gets the parameters. The
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, I have marked this patch as Ready For Committer
Notes for Committer -
There is one behavioural difference in the handling of --analyze-in-stages
switch, when individual tables (by using -t option) are analyzed
Hi,
I found an inconsistency between documentation and real behavior of
REVOKE [ADMIN OPTION FOR] ROLE.
As per documentation
(http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/sql-revoke.html):
--
If GRANT OPTION FOR is specified, only the grant option for the
privilege is revoked, not the
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing I noticed that is a bit dismaying is that we don't get a lot
of benefit from having more workers. Look at the 0.1 data. At 2
workers, if we scaled perfectly, we would be 3x faster (since the
master can do
Hello Kyotaro-san,
If you feel that this feature only deserve a lexer solution, then the
patch should be returned with feedback.
It's unfortunate to abandon this idea so I tried this and made it run
with psql's parser. I think it works as expected.
Wow, you are much more courageous than I
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Rajeev rastogi rajeev.rast...@huawei.com
wrote:
After few failed attempt to propose Autonomous transaction earlier. I
along with Simon Riggs would like to propose again but completely different
in approach.
We also had discussion about this feature in
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
Indeed, this commit allows ForeignScan to have fdw_scan_tlist, even if
scanrelid 0, however, I'm uncertain about its reason/intention.
Does it a preparation for the upcoming target-list-pushdown??
I guess Tom
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Hm, well, I am not sure that we want to pay the overhead of
re-summarization every time we prune a single tuple from a block range.
That's going to make vacuum much slower, I assume (without measuring);
many page ranges are going to be re-summarized without this
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru wrote:
Hello.
I’ve changed the previous patch. `group` field in LWLock is removed, so
the size of LWLock will not increase.
Instead of the `group` field I've created new tranches for LWLocks from
Hi,
If you feel that this feature only deserve a lexer solution, then the
patch should be returned with feedback.
It's unfortunate to abandon this idea so I tried this and made it
run with psql's parser. I think it works as expected.
The attached files are as follwoing.
-
Contributors:
We are looking for one or more PostgreSQL contributors to travel to
Havana, Cuba, to present at the second pgDay Cuba. In order to
encourage this young community, we will be funding[1] up to $3000 in
total travel funds for one or two speakers.
Information on the event is here:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 07/23/2015 11:39 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Requesting for everyone's opinion regarding this based on which we can
proceed to enhance/tune/re-write our
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
I'm inclined to let it call heap_setscanlimits only if not allow_sync.
It is possible for a partial range scan to join an existing herd of
scans that happens to be processing that part of the table, in which
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
If we want to expose that level of detail, I think either JSON or arrays
would make more sense, so we're not stuck with a limited amount of info.
Perhaps DDL would be OK with the numbers you suggested, but
Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
- Call VALGRIND_MAKE_MEM_NOACCESS() on a shared buffer when its local pin
count falls to zero. Under CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY, wipe a shared buffer
when its global pin count falls to zero.
Noah Misch wrote:
- Add buildfarm members. This entails reporting any bugs that prevent an
initial passing run. Once you have a passing run, schedule regular runs.
Examples of useful additions:
- ./configure ac_cv_func_getopt_long=no, ac_cv_func_snprintf=no ... to
enable all the
On 07/23/2015 12:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
That's a problem, but I think it is rather unfair to say that it has
anything to do with autonomous transactions. Run a procedure without
needing to hold a snapshot is a completely separate feature request
from allow autonomous transactions, and it's
2015-07-07 3:32 GMT-03:00 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
Hi
previous patch was broken, and buggy
Here is new version with fixed upload and more tests
The interesting is so I should not to modify interface or client - so it
should to work with any current driver with protocol
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Paul Ramsey pram...@cleverelephant.ca wrote:
I’ll have a look at doing invalidation for the case of changes to the FDW
wrappers and servers.
Here's an updated patch that clears the cache on changes to foreign
wrappers and servers.
In testing it I came across
Hello Heikki,
This patch extends pgbench expression with functions. Currently only one
abs function is added. The point is rather to bootstrap the
infrastructure for other functions (such as hash, random variants...) to
be added later.
I think it would actually be good to add at least some
On Jul 22, 2015 12:07 PM, Jolly Chen jo...@chenfamily.com wrote:
Hey everyone,
You have probably heard that Mike Stonebraker recently won the Turing
award. A recording of his award lecture is available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbGeKi6T6QI
It is an entertaining talk overall. If
Hi all,
After a run of valgrind on pg_rewind, I found a couple of code paths
missing some PQclear calls after running a query. Attached is a patch
to fix all those leaks.
Regards,
--
Michael
diff --git a/src/bin/pg_rewind/libpq_fetch.c b/src/bin/pg_rewind/libpq_fetch.c
index 1979fbc..c670fe2
Hi Amit,
The latest v16 patch cannot be applied to the latest
master as is.
434873806a9b1c0edd53c2a9df7c93a8ba021147 changed various
lines in heapam.c, so it probably conflicts with this.
[kaigai@magro sepgsql]$ cat ~/patch/parallel_seqscan_v16.patch | patch -p1
patching file
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
Indeed, this commit allows ForeignScan to have fdw_scan_tlist, even if
scanrelid 0, however, I'm uncertain about its reason/intention.
Does it a preparation for the upcoming target-list-pushdown??
I guess Tom would
Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2015-07-23 02:01, Tom Lane wrote:
This needs to work more like LIMIT, which doesn't try to compute the
limit parameters until the first fetch. So what we need is an Init
function that does very darn little indeed (maybe we don't even need
it at
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, I think we should be able to define a collation in this case.
For example it is as well possible to pass a WITH clause with storage
parameters, though we do not document it in
table_constraint_using_index
On 2015-07-23 07:48:49 -0700, Paul Ramsey wrote:
fdw=# ALTER SERVER foreign_server OPTIONS ( extensions 'postgis' );
ALTER SERVER
fdw=# ALTER SERVER foreign_server OPTIONS ( extensions 'postgis,seg' );
ERROR: option extensions provided more than once
Once set, an option seems to be
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Urgh. So if we do this, that forever precludes having HOT pruning set
the all-visible bit.
I wouldn't say forever, as it would be easy to revert the change if
something more important came along that conflicted with it.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Paul Ramsey pram...@cleverelephant.ca wrote:
In testing it I came across an unrelated issue which could make it
hard for users to manage the options on their wrappers/servers
fdw=# ALTER SERVER foreign_server OPTIONS ( extensions 'postgis' );
ALTER SERVER
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 03:42:58PM -0400, Adam Brightwell wrote:
I like Noah's proposal of having pg_dump --create reproduce all
database-level state.
Should it be enabled by default? If so, then wouldn't it make more
sense to call it --no-create and do the opposite? So, --no-create
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-07-23 11:26:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:29 PM, dinesh kumar dineshkuma...@gmail.com
wrote:
Would like to propose PERMISSIVE mode for the COPY created out files.
I mean, at this
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Rajeev rastogi
rajeev.rast...@huawei.com wrote:
2.It should be allowed to deadlock with master transaction. We
need to work-out a solution to avoid deadlock.
This sentence seems to contradict itself. I thought the consensus was
that the transaction
While I'd favor optional --no-create if we were designing fresh, it's not
worth breaking user scripts by changing that now.
Agreed. So, --create would not be enabled by default.
How would this handle related global objects? It seems like this part
could get a little tricky.
Like roles and
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
I have a hard time imagining anything (beyond synchronous scans)
breaking my assumption that index tuplesorts receive tuples in heap
physical order. If anything was to break that in the future (e.g.
parallelizing the heap
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:29 PM, dinesh kumar dineshkuma...@gmail.com wrote:
Would like to propose PERMISSIVE mode for the COPY created out files.
I mean, at this moment, if do COPY as postgres instance owner, i can able
to read the file as non instance user as well, and would like to restrict
On 2015-07-23 11:06:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I don't know what to do about the fact that it loses to the VM-bit
based approach, but I think it's a bad bet that we will never care
about setting visibility map bits anyplace other than VACUUM.
+1
A background process that tries to hint all
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Or just properly understand the ; ?
-c select * from foo; update bar set baz = 'bing'; vacuum bar;
there is a risk of compatibility issues - all statements runs under one
transaction implicitly
So what?
--
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
If so, I would vote for:
-f script1.bench:3 -f script2.bench:1
over:
-f script1.bench -w 3 -f script2.bench -w 1
Making command-line options order-dependant breaks a lot of system call
libraries in various languages,
On 2015-07-23 11:26:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:29 PM, dinesh kumar dineshkuma...@gmail.com
wrote:
Would like to propose PERMISSIVE mode for the COPY created out files.
I mean, at this moment, if do COPY as postgres instance owner, i can able
to read the file
Yes, I think that's a good idea. I don't know whether : is the right
separator; I kind of line @. But that's bikeshedding.
Possible ASCII contenders should avoid shell and filename interaction,
which exclude * ? ! / [ ] . - $ and so on: those that seem to
remain are @ , = : % # +. I
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Volatilities of pg_xact_commit_timestamp() and pg_last_committed_xact()
are now STABLE. But ISTM that those functions can return different results
even within a single statement. So we should change
Hi all,
How about this patch. I believe it will never missing someone and be
detected while compiling.
2015-07-21 19:38 GMT+08:00 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com:
Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
+1 to this patch, in fact I think we could remove MAX_OCLASS altogether
which would be
Fabien COELHO wrote:
[...] and that a subsequent -w modifies the meaning of the
script-specifiying argument already read. That strikes me as a very
unintuitive interface.
Ok, I understand this afterward modification objection.
What if the -w would be required *before*, and supply a
Robert Haas wrote:
Maybe I'm confused here, but it seems like the only time
re-summarization can be needed is when tuples are pruned. The mere
act of deleting a tuple, even if the delete goes on to commit, doesn't
create a scenario where re-summarization can work out to a win,
because there
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
The BRIN patch added a HeapScanDescData field rs_initblock, but so far as
I can see it's utterly without use, and it's quite confusing (people might
mistake it for rs_startblock, for example). Any objection
Laurent Laborde wrote:
Friendly greetings !
What's the status of parallel clusterdb please ?
I'm having fun (and troubles) applying the vacuumdb patch to clusterdb.
This thread also talk about unifying code for parallelizing clusterdb and
reindex.
Was anything done about it ? Because i
On 07/23/2015 11:18 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Cool. I'm not sure exactly what the right solution is either, but it
seems like the current situation could very well lead to degrading
index performance over time, with no way to put that right except to
rebuild the index completely. So it seems
Hello.
I’ve changed the previous patch. `group` field in LWLock is removed, so the
size of LWLock will not increase.
Instead of the `group` field I've created new tranches for LWLocks from
MainLWLocksArray. This allowed to remove a loop
from the previous version of the patch.
Now the names for
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Qingqing Zhou
zhouqq.postg...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is a proposal introducing some debugging infrastructure into the
core. The basic idea is to allow us to query the planner search space.
To so do, we can dump related information to csv files and use foreign
Requesting for everyone's opinion regarding this based on which we can
proceed to enhance/tune/re-write our design.
So, one of the things which came up during the discussion was advancing
XMIN, which is not important to the audit logging use case, but is very
important for the batch job use
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote:
This is more invasive than I'd like to backpatch, but I think it's the
simplest approach that works, and doesn't disable any of the important
optimizations we have.
Hmm, isn't HeapNeedsWAL() a lot more costly than
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Requesting for everyone's opinion regarding this based on which we can
proceed to enhance/tune/re-write our design.
So, one of the things which came up during the discussion was advancing
XMIN, which is not important to the
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
If other people feel strongly about this issue, then they can weigh in
and we'll see where we end up. If they don't, then there's no
consensus to proceed with this, and we shouldn't *have* to spend a lot
of time on it.
On 07/23/2015 11:39 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Requesting for everyone's opinion regarding this based on which we can
proceed to enhance/tune/re-write our design.
So, one of the things which came up during the discussion was
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
I'm inclined to let it call heap_setscanlimits only if not allow_sync.
It is possible for a partial range scan to join an existing herd of
scans that happens to be processing that part of the table, in which
case this wouldn't
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Hm, well, I am not sure that we want to pay the overhead of
re-summarization every time we prune a single tuple from a block range.
That's going to make vacuum much slower, I assume (without measuring);
many page
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Florent Guiliani flor...@guiliani.fr wrote:
A pg_export_snapshot_for_slot(...) would work very well.
Let me explain the use case. You have many downstream systems that are
replicated
Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com
wrote:
There's another issue here though -- just adding filters to the
pg_stats view won't prevent a determined user from seeing the contents
of the underlying table. For that, the view needs to have
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
My priorities are different from yours. Your conclusion is basically
that it's OK to burden everyone who comes along and does future
development that may use the sorting code differently from the way
it's used now with
Hi Robert/Andres,
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de
wrote:
On 2015-07-23 11:26:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:29 PM, dinesh kumar dineshkuma...@gmail.com
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:19 PM, dinesh kumar dineshkuma...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for my unclear description about the proposal.
WITH PERMISSIVE is equal to our existing behavior. That is, chmod=644 on
the created files.
If User don't specify PERMISSIVE as an option, then the chmod=600 on
On 03/04/2015 06:58 PM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
In the original post on this, you mentioned that the PostGIS guys planned to
use this to store polygons, as bounding boxes
On 07/04/2015 04:24 AM, Jan de Visser wrote:
On July 3, 2015 06:21:09 PM Tom Lane wrote:
Jan de Visser j...@de-visser.net writes:
Attached a new patch, rebased against the current head. Errors in
pg_hba.conf and pg_ident.conf are now also noticed.
I checked the documentation for pg_ctl
Poorly, by hanging boxes that straddled dividing lines off the parent
node in a big linear list. The hope would be that the case was
Ok, I see, but that's not really what I was wondering. My question is this:
SP-GiST partitions the space into non-overlapping sections. How can you store
polygons
If we have ParallelAppend node that kicks a background worker process for
each underlying child node in parallel, does ForeignScan need to do
something
special?
Although I don't see the point of the background worker in your
story but at least for ParalleMergeAppend, it would
Hello,
Yes. Any percent completion calculation will have to account for the case of
needing multiple passes through all the indexes.
Each dead tuple requires 6 bytes (IIRC) of maintenance work mem. So if you're
deleting 5M rows with m_w_m=1MB you should be getting many passes through the
On 03/06/2015 11:41 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
This patch extends pgbench expression with functions. Currently only one
abs function is added. The point is rather to bootstrap the
infrastructure for other functions (such as hash, random variants...) to
be added later.
I think it would actually
On 22 July 2015 at 17:21, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote:
When a WAL-skipping COPY begins, we add an entry for that relation in a
pending-fsyncs hash table. Whenever we perform any action on a heap that
would normally be WAL-logged, we check if the relation is in the hash
table,
On 07/23/2015 05:57 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
At Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:50:35 +0300, Ildus Kurbangalievi.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru
wrote in55afadbb.9090...@postgrespro.ru
On 07/22/2015 09:10 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Hello,
At Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:28:25 +0300, Ildus Kurbangaliev
Hello,
logged 25 times
Sorry, it is much lower at 7 times. Does not change overall point though
regards
Sameer Thakur | Senior Software Specialist | NTTDATA Global Delivery Services
Private Ltd | w. +91.20.6641.7146 | VoIP: 8834.8146 | m. +91 989.016.6656 |
sameer.tha...@nttdata.com | Follow us
78 matches
Mail list logo
