On 2/23/17 8:47 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Anything else than measured in bytes either requires a lookup at the
file timestamp, which is not reliable with noatime or a lookup at WAL
itself to decide when is the commit timestamp that matches the oldest
point in time of the backup policy.
An indi
On 2/23/17 8:52 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
OK, I forgot a bit about this past discussion. So let's say that we
have a command, why not also allow users to use at will a marker %f to
indicate the file name just completed? One use case here is to scan
the file for the oldest and/or newest timestamp
On 02/23/2017 08:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> On 02/23/2017 04:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> BTW, while I'm looking at this ... isn't gin_enum_cmp broken on its face?
>> Yes, that's what I'm trying to fix.
> I'd forgotten where this thread started. For a minute there I though
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 2/23/17 8:47 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> Anything else than measured in bytes either requires a lookup at the
>> file timestamp, which is not reliable with noatime or a lookup at WAL
>> itself to decide when is the commit timestamp that
On 2/23/17 3:33 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
I've had to do it with temp tables any time the environment is different
between control/experiment, which is the case when you're developing a
drop-in replacement for an SRF or view or whatever.
FWIW I'd recommend temp views, to give the planner the mos
On 2/23/17 9:01 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
An idea here would be to add in the long header of the segment a
timestamp of when it was created. This is inherent to only the server
generating the WAL.
ISTM it'd be reasonable (maybe even wise) for WAL files to contain info
about the first and last
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>> I understand that there could be some delay in reclaiming dead pages
>> but do you think it is such a big deal that we completely scan the
>> index for such cases or even try to cha
On 2017-02-23 14:26:07 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 2/23/17 6:38 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > I'm not so confident, but the "'tis" seems to me to be a typo of
> > > "it's".
> > That is an archaic way of contracting the same words differently:
>
> Given the number of non-native English speakers we
Hi all
While writing some tests I noticed that in newer IPC::Run or Perl
versions (haven't dug extensively to find out which), perl appends the
location to the extension, so 'ne' doesn't match the passed exception
string.
Pattern-match the exception string to handle this.
Bugfix, should be appli
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2017-02-23 14:26:07 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> On 2/23/17 6:38 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:
>>> That is an archaic way of contracting the same words differently:
>> Given the number of non-native English speakers we have, it's probably worth
>> changing it...
> I'm a non-na
On 2017-02-15 17:27:11 Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Jim Nasby
> wrote:
> > On 2/14/17 3:13 AM, Seki, Eiji wrote:
> >> +extern TransactionId GetOldestXmin(Relation rel, uint8 ignoreFlags);
> >
> >
> > My impression is that most other places that do this sort of thing ju
On 24 February 2017 at 02:36, Robert Haas wrote:
>> While its true that the patch had syntax documentation, there was no
>> user design documentation which explained how it worked to allow
>> objective review. Had I been able to provide input without reading
>> every email message, I would have d
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Rafia Sabih
> wrote:
>
> 2. How are you protecting, if the outer select is running in parallel,
> then the function called from there should not run anything in
> parallel? This may allow worker launching anot
On 16 February 2017 at 05:24, Seki, Eiji wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Please persuade us with measurements that allowing this impact on
>> ANALYZE would really improve performance at least in your case, and
>> also examine the effect of this on the accuracy and usefulness of the
>> gathered sta
Okay. As suggested by Alexander, I have changed the order of reading and
doing initdb for each pgbench run. With these changes, I got following
results at 300 scale factor with 8GB of shared buffer.
*pgbench settings:*
pgbench -i -s 300 postgres
pgbench -M prepared -c $thread -j $thread -T $time_f
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> Few more comments.
>> 1.I don't see any check in the code which will prevent the parallel
>> execution of the query inside a function if its called from a DML
>> statement.
>> e.g. If we u
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/02/24 10:38, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Amit Langote <
> langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2017/02/24 8:38, Venkata B Nagothi wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Amit La
On 24 February 2017 at 04:41, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> Okay. As suggested by Alexander, I have changed the order of reading and
> doing initdb for each pgbench run. With these changes, I got following
> results at 300 scale factor with 8GB of shared buffer.
>
Would you be able to test my patch a
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:38 PM, David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Amit Langote <
> langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>
>> On 2017/02/24 8:38, Venkata B Nagothi wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> >> Upper
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> We have a below check in standard_planner() (!IsParallelWorker())
> which should prohibit generating parallel plan inside worker, if that
> is what you are seeing, then we might need a similar check at other
> places.
>
> if ((cursorOptions &
Hi Hackers,
Here I attached an implementation patch that allows
utility statements that have queries underneath such as
CREATE TABLE AS, CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW
and REFRESH commands to benefit from parallel plan.
These write operations not performed concurrently by the
parallel workers, but the
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> The good news is that logical replication DOES work with partitioning,
> but only for a Publication with PUBLISH INSERT, pushing from a normal
> table to a partitioned one. Which is useful enough for first release.
>
> The work on having UPDATE
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think these are straw-man arguments, really. Consider the actual use
> case for such a feature: it's for porting some application that was not
> written against Postgres to begin with.
I'm not sure that's totally true. I think at least some r
On 14 February 2017 at 14:19, Seki, Eiji wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I propose the patch that adds a function GetOldestXminExtended that is like
> GetOldestXmin but can ignore arbitrary vacuum flags. And then, rewrite
> GetOldestXmin to use it. Note that this is done so as not to change the
> behavior
On 2017-02-23 17:28:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Janes writes:
> > The number of new chunks can be almost as as large as the number of old
> > chunks, especially if there is a very popular value. The problem is that
> > every time an old chunk is freed, the code in aset.c around line 968 has
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 24 February 2017 at 04:41, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>>
>> Okay. As suggested by Alexander, I have changed the order of reading and
>> doing initdb for each pgbench run. With these changes, I got following
>> results at 300 scale factor with
About v17:
Patch applies, "make check" & psql "make check" ok.
... '@' [...] I noticed that it takes precedence over '!'. [...]
My reasoning was this: if you're in a false block, and you're not connected
to a db, the \c isn't going to work for you until you get out of the false
block, so rig
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2017-02-23 17:28:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Maybe it's time to convert that to a doubly-linked list.
> Yes, I do think so. Given that we only have that for full blocks, not
> for small chunks, the cost seems neglegible.
> That would also, partially, address the perfor
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Jeff, do you have a handy demonstrator?
If you want to hit ExecHashIncreaseNumBatches a bunch of times, see
the "ugly" example in the attached.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
hj-test-queries.sql
Description: Binary data
--
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> I am inclined to at least have some option for the user to decide the
> behaviour. In the future we can even consider support for walking
> through the ctid chain across multiple relfilenodes. But till then, we
> need to decide what default
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Maybe the best answer is to not do it immediately when transforming the
> subselect's RTE, but to go back after we've finished transforming the
> entire FROM clause and add aliases to any RTEs that lack them. I think
> probably at that point you
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Beena Emerson
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Beena Emerson
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> > PFA the updated patches.
>> I've started reviewing the patches.
>> 01-add-XLogSegmentOffs
On 2017-02-24 01:59:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2017-02-23 17:28:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Maybe it's time to convert that to a doubly-linked list.
>
> > Yes, I do think so. Given that we only have that for full blocks, not
> > for small chunks, the cost seems neg
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Pantelis Theodosiou wrote:
> Question: Will the patch be removed if and when Oracle decides to be
> compatible with the standard and forbids non-aliased derived tables?
>
> (I know it's a rather theoretical question. Unlikely that Oracle breaks
> backwards compatib
On 23 February 2017 at 22:20, Tom Lane wrote:
>> * Don't force/generate an alias at all.
>
>> I've no idea for this yet and Tom already was concerned what this might
>> break. There are several places in the transform phase where the
>> refnames are required (e.g. isLockedRefname()).
>
> Yeah. T
On 16 January 2017 at 05:01, Jim Nasby wrote:
> Not sure how many people still use [1], as referenced by our git wiki[2],
> but it appears git worktrees are a viable replacement for that technique. In
> short, if you're already in your checkout:
>
> git worktree add ../9.6 REL9_6_STABLE
>
> would
On Friday, February 24, 2017, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Amit Khandekar > wrote:
> > I am inclined to at least have some option for the user to decide the
> > behaviour. In the future we can even consider support for walking
> > through the ctid chain across multiple r
101 - 137 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
