Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
in addition to that you have the “problem” of transactions. if you failover
in the middle
of a transaction, strange things might happen from the application point of
view.
the good thing, however, is that stupid middleware is sometimes not able to
handle
On 18 August 2015 at 11:30, Amit Langote langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp
wrote:
Hi,
I would like propose $SUBJECT for this development cycle. Attached is a
WIP patch that implements most if not all of what's described below. Some
yet unaddressed parts are mentioned below, too. I'll add this
On 18 Aug 2015, at 11:19, Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at wrote:
Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
in addition to that you have the “problem” of transactions. if you failover
in the middle
of a transaction, strange things might happen from the application point of
view.
the good thing,
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:06:42PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-08-16 03:31:48 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
I'd love to make it a #warning intead of an error, but unfortunately
that's not standard C :(
Okay.
Other than that benefit, making headers #error-on-FRONTEND mostly lets
us
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com
wrote:
...is a good idea. postgres operators tend to return immutable copies
of the item they are referring to.
This patch does not add an operator
Victor Wagner wrote:
Rationale
=
Since introduction of the WAL-based replication into the PostgreSQL, it is
possible to create high-availability and load-balancing clusters.
However, there is no support for failover in the client libraries. So, only
way to provide transparent for
Hello Kondo-san,
I briefly checked your patch. Let me put some comments about
its design and implementation, even though I have no arguments
towards its concept. :-)
* Construction of RelOptInfo
In your patch, try_hashjoin_pushdown() called by try_hashjoin_path()
constructs RelOptInfo of the
Hello Amit,
So the option is best kept as off for now, without further data, I'm
fine with that.
One point to think here is on what basis user can decide make
this option on, is it predictable in any way?
I think one case could be when the data set fits in shared_buffers.
Yep.
In general,
On 18 Aug 2015, at 10:32, Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at wrote:
Victor Wagner wrote:
Rationale
=
Since introduction of the WAL-based replication into the PostgreSQL, it is
possible to create high-availability and load-balancing clusters.
However, there is no support for
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
How would we handle decreases at run time? We can prevent =archive -
minimal if archiving is running or there are physical replication slots,
and we can prevent logical - something less if there are logical
replication
In [1], it was discussed to make wal_level changeable at run time
(PGC_SIGHUP), as part of an effort to make replication easier to set up
and/or provide better defaults. I was wondering what it would take to
do that.
I looks like increasing the setting is doable, as long as we WAL-log the
change
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 02:03:19PM +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
I suspect any effort to significantly improve Postgres test
coverage is doomed until there's an alternative to pg_regress.
There is the
Hi Thom,
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
Wow, didn't expect to see that email this morning.
A very quick test:
CREATE TABLE purchases (purchase_id serial, purchase_time timestamp, item
text) partition by range on ((extract(year from
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
In [1], it was discussed to make wal_level changeable at run time
(PGC_SIGHUP), as part of an effort to make replication easier to set up
and/or provide better defaults. I was wondering what it would take to
do that.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
My own position is based on having maintained a pg_regress suite an order of
magnitude larger than that. I don't know why that outcome was so different.
Comparing the size of test suites by these numbers is impossible
because
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
They also provide a level of control over what is and isn't
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
The commit message for de76884 contains some important information about
the purpose and use of the new .partial WAL files. But I don't see
anything about this in the
Hi
2015-08-17 23:46 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com writes:
On 8/17/15 9:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm inclined to think that if we wanted to make this better, the way to
improve it would be to detect the error*at compile time*, and get rid of
this
great :-)
2. Creating a partition of a partitioned table
CREATE TABLE table_name
PARTITION OF partitioned_table_name
FOR VALUES values_spec;
Where values_spec is:
listvalues: [IN] (val1, ...)
Would it make sense to allow one complementary partition to the listvalues?
listvalues: [[NOT]
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
The commit message for de76884 contains some important information about
the purpose and use of the new .partial WAL files.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
CREATE TABLE t (c) AS SELECT 1;
BEGIN;
UPDATE t SET c = 2 WHERE c = 1;
BEGIN_AUTONOMOUS;
UPDATE t SET c = 3 WHERE c = 1;
UPDATE t SET c = 4 WHERE c
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Jaime Casanova
jaime.casan...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
This is not completely true, you can always use something like
pgbouncer or other middleware to change the server to which clients
connect. you still need to solve the fact that you will have a
read-only
Amit,
I would like propose $SUBJECT for this development cycle. Attached is a
WIP patch that implements most if not all of what's described below. Some
yet unaddressed parts are mentioned below, too. I'll add this to the CF-SEP.
First of all, wow! Really happy to see this.
Syntax
==
On 2015-08-18 13:24:54 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 8/18/15 12:35 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
If archive_mode=on or max_wal_senders0, then we need at least
wal_level=archive. Otherwise wal_level=minimal is enough.
Totally forgot about max_wal_senders.
However, the thread I linked to
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Amit Langote langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp
wrote:
Hi,
I would like propose $SUBJECT for this development cycle. Attached is a
WIP patch that implements most if not all of what's described below. Some
yet unaddressed parts are mentioned below, too. I'll add
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
SCRAM itself, as has been discussed, supports multiple password
verifiers- that's a specific case all by itself, and it's done
specifically to address the issue that one or
On 8/18/15 12:35 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
If archive_mode=on or max_wal_senders0, then we need at least
wal_level=archive. Otherwise wal_level=minimal is enough.
Totally forgot about max_wal_senders.
However, the thread I linked to earlier aimed for a different master
plan (or if not, I'm
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
I would expect there to be people who would run into pg_upgrade
complaining, that's why there would be the check. That's actually a
much better situation than what happened around
standard_conforming_strings. Further,
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Daniel Verite dan...@manitou-mail.org wrote:
When tab-completing after GRANT EXECUTE, currently psql injects
PROCEDURE, rather than the expected ON.
The code for completing with ON is there, but it's not reached due to
falling earlier into another branch, one
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
That was the imputus for my earlier suggestion that in a release or two,
we actively make pg_upgrade error (or perhaps warn first, then error,
across two releases)
pg_upgrade's check.c contains a function called
check_for_isn_and_int8_passing_mismatch. If the float8 pass-by-value
values differ between the old and new clusters, which is likely to
happen on Windows 64 because of cf376a4ad, and if the old cluster
contains any databases which contain functions
Hi hackers, I've been wrestling with this one for a while and gone
down a couple blind alleys, so time to ask the experts.
PostGIS has a couple things different from the extensions that live in contrib,
- it has some GUCs
- it has a versioned loadable library (postgis-2.1.so, postgis-2.2.so,
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, that's a completely bogus argument. We do not need to
prevent people from upgrading if they haven't moved off of MD5
authentication; that's just an arbitrary - and IMHO extremely
user-hostile - policy decision.
Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
longlbuckets;
lbuckets = 1 my_log2(hash_table_bytes / bucket_size);
Assert(nbuckets 0);
In my case, the hash_table_bytes was 101017630802, and bucket_size was 48.
So, my_log2(hash_table_bytes / bucket_size) = 31, then
On 2015-08-15 17:55, I wrote:
The attached patch adds support for RADIUS passwords longer than 16 octets.
Improved the coding and comments a bit, new version attached.
.m
*** a/src/backend/libpq/auth.c
--- b/src/backend/libpq/auth.c
***
*** 2168,2173 CheckCertAuth(Port
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 04:54:07PM +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:16 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
I'm given to understand that this tight coupling is necessary for
performance. Are you saying that it could be unwound, or that
testing strategies mostly need
Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 18 August 2015 at 01:18, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
FETCH [in WITH]
I'd be a huge fan of this one. I'd love to see FETCH in subqueries,
too. Currently doing anything like this requires an ugly PL/PgSQL
wrapper.
The cursor would have
I wonder how extended protocol is handled by this proposal. Suppose
load balacing mode is enabled. PQprepare is executed on standby1. Then
PQexecPrepared gets called. This may be executed on standby2, which
will fail because there's no prepared statement created by the former
PQprepare call.
Even
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com
wrote:
Sure, that is what we should do, however the tricky part would be when
the path for doing local scan is extremely cheaper than path for
I reported a similar issue before.
* Re: DBT-3 with SF=20 got failed
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/557a19d1.9050...@2ndquadrant.com
I didn't get a server crash at that time, however, palloc() complained
about request size = 1GB.
So, we may need a couple of overhaul around HashJoin to
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr wrote:
Hello Amit,
So the option is best kept as off for now, without further data, I'm
fine with that.
One point to think here is on what basis user can decide make
this option on, is it predictable in any way?
I think
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Victor Wagner vi...@wagner.pp.ru wrote:
Behavoir
If PQconnectdb encounters connect string with multiple hosts specified,
it attempts to establish connection with all these hosts simultaneously,
and begins to work with server which responds first,
On 18 August 2015 at 01:18, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
FETCH [in WITH]
I'd be a huge fan of this one. I'd love to see FETCH in subqueries,
too. Currently doing anything like this requires an ugly PL/PgSQL
wrapper.
The cursor would have to be known at plan-time so it could be
On 15 August 2015 at 00:51, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
I started my tests by cloning the contrib/worker_spi code, and when
transforming the code into C++, I could only note that C++ is not supported
in the provided Makefiles.
Yes, that doesn't surprise me. Postgres itself
When we check a tuple for MVCC, it has to pass checks that the inserting
transaction has committed, and that it committed before our snapshot
began. And similarly that the deleting transaction hasn't committed, or
did so after our snapshot.
XidInMVCCSnapshot is (or can be) very much cheaper
than
Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com writes:
When we check a tuple for MVCC, it has to pass checks that the inserting
transaction has committed, and that it committed before our snapshot
began. And similarly that the deleting transaction hasn't committed, or
did so after our snapshot.
Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
longlbuckets;
lbuckets = 1 my_log2(hash_table_bytes / bucket_size);
Assert(nbuckets 0);
In my case, the hash_table_bytes was 101017630802, and bucket_size was 48.
So, my_log2(hash_table_bytes / bucket_size)
On 19 August 2015 at 08:54, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
longlbuckets;
lbuckets = 1 my_log2(hash_table_bytes / bucket_size);
Assert(nbuckets 0);
In my case, the hash_table_bytes was 101017630802, and
On 19 August 2015 at 12:23, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: David Rowley [mailto:david.row...@2ndquadrant.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 9:00 AM
The size of your hash table is 101017630802 bytes, which is:
david=# select
I wrote:
Just thinking about this ... I wonder why we need to call
TransactionIdIsInProgress() at all rather than believing the answer from
the snapshot? Under what circumstances could TransactionIdIsInProgress()
return true where XidInMVCCSnapshot() had not?
I experimented with the attached
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 6:40 AM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
Here is one other thing I could learn from TPC-DS benchmark.
The attached query is Q4 of TPC-DS, and its result was towards SF=100.
It took long time to compete (about 30min), please see the attached
EXPLAIN
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:46 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-08-18 13:24:54 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
But if we tie the effective wal_level to archive_mode or
max_wal_senders, both of which are restart-only, then we haven't gained
anything. (We would have removed half
On 8/18/15 1:46 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
I don't think not requiring restarts is sufficient, having to twiddle a
bunch of parameters manually still is a lot more effort than people see
as necessary.
I agree that we want both. But requiring a restart is a hard stop,
whereas making
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
when I implemented this check in plpgsql_check I found another minor issue
in CONTINUE statement - the typename is wrong
Hmmm ... a bit of nosing around says that fetch/move and get diagnostics
are similarly sloppy. Will fix.
Hi, all.
I don't think we actually want backslash-continuations. The feature we
want is allow SQL statements span multiple lines, and using the psql
lexer solves that. We don't need the backslash-continuations when we
have that.
Sure. The feature *I* initially wanted was to have
-Original Message-
From: David Rowley [mailto:david.row...@2ndquadrant.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 9:00 AM
To: Kevin Grittner
Cc: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平); pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bug? ExecChooseHashTableSize() got assertion failed
with
crazy
David Rowley david.row...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
david=# set work_mem = '94GB';
ERROR: 98566144 is outside the valid range for parameter work_mem (64 ..
2097151)
Apparently you're testing on a 32-bit server. 64-bit servers allow
work_mem to go up to INT_MAX kilobytes.
On 19 August 2015 at 12:38, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
David Rowley david.row...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
david=# set work_mem = '94GB';
ERROR: 98566144 is outside the valid range for parameter work_mem (64
..
2097151)
Apparently you're testing on a 32-bit server. 64-bit
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 6:40 AM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
Here is one other thing I could learn from TPC-DS benchmark.
The attached query is Q4 of TPC-DS, and its result was towards SF=100.
It took long time to compete (about 30min), please see the attached
EXPLAIN ANALYZE
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, that's a completely bogus argument. We do not need to
prevent people from upgrading if they haven't moved off of MD5
authentication; that's just
Hi
I miss a functionality that helps with parsing any identifier to basic
three parts - database, schema, objectname. We have this function
internally, but it is not available for SQL layer.
FUNCTION parse_ident(IN ident text, OUT dbname text, OUT schemaname text,
OUT objectname text)
Examples:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
I think SortSupport logic provides a reasonable way to solve this
kind of problem. For example, btint4sortsupport() informs a function
pointer of the fast version of comparator (btint4fastcmp) which takes
two Datum
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 07:30:20PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
Hi,
I would like propose $SUBJECT for this development cycle. Attached is a
WIP patch that implements most if not all of what's described below. Some
yet unaddressed parts are mentioned below, too. I'll add this to the CF-SEP.
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On 8/18/15 8:48 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
What do you mean by prevent? If the user edits postgresql.conf and
reduces the setting, and then reloads the configuration file, they
have a right to expect that the changes got applied.
We have certain checks
On 08/18/2015 01:11 AM, Kaare Rasmussen wrote:
On 2015-08-17 22:33, Josh Berkus wrote:
So, both perl and python do not allow deep nesting of assignments.
For example:
d = { a : { } }
d[a][a1][a2] = 42
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in module
KeyError: 'a1'
Not
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Rahila Syed rahilasye...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Say, 6 bigint counters, 6 float8
counters, and 3 strings up to 80 characters each. So we have a
fixed-size chunk of shared memory per backend, and each backend that
wants to expose progress information can fill
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-08-17 14:31:24 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
The postmaster process in particular runs in a rather unusual
arrangement, where most of the interesting stuff does happen in signal
handlers.
FWIW, I think it might
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
I'd rather see those split into separate commits. Doing polishing and
active bugs in one commit imo isn't a good idea if the polishing goes
beyond a line or two.
+1.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB:
On 8/18/15 8:48 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
How would we handle decreases at run time? We can prevent =archive -
minimal if archiving is running or there are physical replication slots,
and we can prevent logical - something
Josh,
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote:
I don't feel like you've correctly assessed the risk inherent in the
md5 auth method, which is that, having captured an md5auth string by
whatever means, and attacker can reuse that md5 string on other
databases in the network *without* cracking
On 08/18/2015 01:32 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hi
2015-08-17 21:12 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com
mailto:jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 8/17/15 12:57 PM, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
* is it interesting for the community?
We definitely need better ways to manipulate
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
CREATE TABLE t (c) AS SELECT 1;
BEGIN;
UPDATE t SET c = 2 WHERE c = 1;
BEGIN_AUTONOMOUS;
UPDATE t SET c = 3 WHERE c = 1;
UPDATE t SET c = 4 WHERE c = 2;
COMMIT_AUTONOMOUS;
ROLLBACK;
If you replace the autonomous
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Mark Johnston ma...@freebsd.org wrote:
There seems to be a bug in the make rules when DTrace is enabled. It
causes dtrace -G to be invoked twice when building PostgreSQL as a
FreeBSD port: once during the build itself, and once during
installation. For a long
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On 8/18/15 8:48 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
What do you mean by prevent? If the user edits postgresql.conf and
reduces the setting, and then reloads the configuration file, they
have a
Hello,
I noticed ExecChooseHashTableSize() in nodeHash.c got failed by
Assert(nbuckets 0), when crazy number of rows are expected.
BACKTRACE:
#0 0x003f79432625 in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#1 0x003f79433e05 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#2 0x0092600a in
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Masahiko Sawada sawada.m...@gmail.com wrote:
I have encountered the much cases where pg_stat_statement,
pgstattuples are required in production, so I basically agree with
moving such extension into core.
But IMO, the diagnostic tools for visibility map, heap
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:07 AM, PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig
postg...@cybertec.at wrote:
On 18 Aug 2015, at 11:19, Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at wrote:
Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
in addition to that you have the “problem” of transactions. if you failover
in the middle
of a
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
That was the imputus for my earlier suggestion that in a release or two,
we actively make pg_upgrade error (or perhaps warn first, then error,
across two releases) if any of the old verifiers exist.
I think there's
On 17 August 2015 at 23:18, Victor Wagner vi...@wagner.pp.ru wrote:
Rationale
=
Since introduction of the WAL-based replication into the PostgreSQL, it is
possible to create high-availability and load-balancing clusters.
However, there is no support for failover in the client
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
User backends attempt to take the lock conditionally, because otherwise they
would cause an autovacuum already holding the lock to cancel itself, which
seems quite bad.
Not that this a substantial behavior change, in that
Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Mark Johnston ma...@freebsd.org wrote:
The bug is in src/backend/Makefile. probes.o, the dtrace(1)-generated
object file, depends on the objfiles.txt for each of the backend
subdirs. These files depend in turn on the object files
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On 8/18/15 9:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
IIRC, the reason for having a wal_level parameter separate from those
other ones was precisely that only wal_level had to be PGC_POSTMASTER,
and you could change the others if you
On 8/18/15 9:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
IIRC, the reason for having a wal_level parameter separate from those
other ones was precisely that only wal_level had to be PGC_POSTMASTER,
and you could change the others if you wanted.
I think you are thinking of having split archive_mode/archive_command,
Hi
2015-08-18 17:41 GMT+02:00 Charles Sheridan cesh...@swbell.net:
Hi,
I was looking at PL/pgSQL documentation and realized that contrary to
spec, I've been omitting the colon ':' from assignments, e.g. writing
'x = 5' rather than the correct
'x := 5'
I don't see any error
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
The commit message for de76884 contains some important information about
the purpose and use of the new .partial WAL files. But I don't see
anything about this in the documentation or another user-visible place.
We
Hi,
I was looking at PL/pgSQL documentation and realized that contrary to
spec, I've been omitting the colon ':' from assignments, e.g. writing
'x = 5' rather than the correct
'x := 5'
I don't see any error messages about this.
I am not aware of any problems due to this. I suppose that
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:16 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
I'm given to understand that this tight coupling is necessary for
performance. Are you saying that it could be unwound, or that testing
strategies mostly need to take it into account, or...?
I'm just saying that we
87 matches
Mail list logo
