Re: [HACKERS] Pre-allocated free space for row updating

2005-08-30 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 08:32 +0900, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > The summary was: > > > > 1. Have a PCTFREE column added on a table by table basis > > I think a good place to keep PCTFREE value is a new column > in the pg_class, and ALTER TABLE should be able to change this val

[HACKERS] statement logging / extended query protocol issues

2005-08-30 Thread Oliver Jowett
8.1-beta1 produces some odd results with statement logging enabled when the extended query protocol is used (e.g. when using the JDBC driver). Repeatedly running a simple query with log_statement = 'all' produces this: LOG: statement: PREPARE AS SELECT 'dummy statement' LOG: statement: LOG: s

Re: [HACKERS] Intermittent stats test failures on buildfarm

2005-08-30 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: "Rocco Altier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Also, kookaburra (AIX) has a problem with the stats test as well. kookaburra's problem is entirely different, not intermittent in the least. The error diff shows that stats collection is off, and its postmaster log says LO

Re: [HACKERS] Pre-allocated free space for row updating (like PCTFREE)

2005-08-30 Thread Satoshi Nagayasu
Simon Riggs wrote: > The summary was: > > 1. Have a PCTFREE column added on a table by table basis I think a good place to keep PCTFREE value is a new column in the pg_class, and ALTER TABLE should be able to change this value. > 2. Apply PCTFREE for Inserts only > 3. Allow Updates to use the fu

Re: [HACKERS] [Slony1-general] Re: dangling lock information?

2005-08-30 Thread Chris Browne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alvaro Herrera) writes: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 12:45:18PM -0400, Chris Browne wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("David Parker") writes: >> > The slony log trigger saves execution plans, so any given >> > connection that has been used with a slony schema installed will >> > have cac

Re: [HACKERS] problems installing pgsql on rh9 box

2005-08-30 Thread Jeff MacDonald
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 12:06 -0600, Ricardo Gamero wrote: > Hello everybody! > > I'm so sorry to post this simple question but I don't know what to do, > the thing is I need to install postgresql 8.0.3 in red hat 9 but when > I try to do it this errors appear: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# rpm -i

Re: [HACKERS] [Slony1-general] Re: dangling lock information?

2005-08-30 Thread Andreas Pflug
Alvaro Herrera wrote: Unfortunately, it's not at all obvious how to accomplish that :-(. I don't think it can be easily done with the current code. This is plpgsql code, right? There are some ways to cause recompilation for those, at least on the 8.1 code I'm looking at. Well at least w

Re: [HACKERS] Intermittent stats test failures on buildfarm

2005-08-30 Thread Tom Lane
"Rocco Altier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Also, kookaburra (AIX) has a problem with the stats test as well. kookaburra's problem is entirely different, not intermittent in the least. The error diff shows that stats collection is off, and its postmaster log says LOG: could not bind socket for

Re: [HACKERS] Intermittent stats test failures on buildfarm

2005-08-30 Thread Rocco Altier
Also, kookaburra (AIX) has a problem with the stats test as well. What is most puzzling to me is that it only happens with cc (not gcc). And I can only get it to happen when running a cronjob for the buildfarm. If I run it interactively, the stats collector will run fine, or if I run the build sc

Re: [HACKERS] [Slony1-general] Re: dangling lock information?

2005-08-30 Thread Neil Conway
Tom Lane wrote: Yeah. This is not really Slony's fault --- we need a general solution to that in the backend. I think Neil was working on it, but I dunno how far along he is. Yeah, I had wanted to get this into 8.1, but I couldn't find time. I still plan to work on it for 8.2, unless someone

Re: [HACKERS] [Slony1-general] Re: dangling lock information?

2005-08-30 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 12:45:18PM -0400, Chris Browne wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("David Parker") writes: > > The slony log trigger saves execution plans, so any given connection > > that has been used with a slony schema installed will have cached OIDs > > referring to the sl_log_1 table. When yo

[HACKERS] problems installing pgsql

2005-08-30 Thread Ricardo Gamero
Hello everybody!   I'm so sorry to post this simple question but I don't know what to do, the thing is I need to install postgresql 8.0.3 in red hat 9 but when I try to do it this errors appear:   [EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# rpm -ivh postgresql-server-8.0.3-1PGDG.i686.rpmwarning: postgresql-server-8.0

Re: [HACKERS] [Slony1-general] Re: dangling lock information?

2005-08-30 Thread Tom Lane
Chris Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What is needed is to invalidate the cached execution plans. Yeah. This is not really Slony's fault --- we need a general solution to that in the backend. I think Neil was working on it, but I dunno how far along he is. regards,

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1beta, SunOS and shmget

2005-08-30 Thread Tom Lane
"Thomas F. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Aug 29, 2005, at 12:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I just finished going through the initialization sequence to trace the >> calculation of shared memory size, and what I find in CVS tip is that >> it works out like this: > Should the new formulati

Re: [HACKERS] [Slony1-general] Re: dangling lock information?

2005-08-30 Thread Chris Browne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("David Parker") writes: > The slony log trigger saves execution plans, so any given connection > that has been used with a slony schema installed will have cached OIDs > referring to the sl_log_1 table. When you drop the schema, those OIDs > obviously go away. When you re-create

Re: [HACKERS] SHMMAX seems entirely broken in OS X 10.4.2

2005-08-30 Thread Luke Lonergan
Jeff, On 8/30/05 5:28 AM, "Jeff Trout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just ran software update and (besides a couple apps) it had a > security update. I just did that to test this. > skittlebrau:~ postgres$ grep shm /etc/rc Luke-Lonergans-Computer:~ lukelonergan$ cat /etc/sysctl.conf kern.sysv.s

Re: [HACKERS] Performance gain from reduction of GROUP BY memory

2005-08-30 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian writes: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:23:49AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> I don't usually document internal API changes in the release notes. >>> Should I? >> >> Doesn't this potentially affect user-defined aggregates? > I read it as something that _cou

Re: [HACKERS] Performance gain from reduction of GROUP BY memory

2005-08-30 Thread Bruce Momjian
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:23:49AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > 2005-03-12 15:25 tgl > > > > > > > > * contrib/intagg/int_aggregate.c, > > > > contrib/intagg/int_aggregate.sql.in, doc/src/sgml/xaggr.sgml, > > > > doc/src/sgml/xfunc.sgml, s

Re: [HACKERS] Performance gain from reduction of GROUP BY memory

2005-08-30 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:23:49AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > 2005-03-12 15:25 tgl > > > > > > * contrib/intagg/int_aggregate.c, > > > contrib/intagg/int_aggregate.sql.in, doc/src/sgml/xaggr.sgml, > > > doc/src/sgml/xfunc.sgml, src/backend/executor/nodeAgg.c, > > > src/backend/uti

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1beta, SunOS and shmget

2005-08-30 Thread Thomas F. O'Connell
On Aug 29, 2005, at 12:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:30:46AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: 20 buffers ... ugh. Obviously we are on the hairy edge of no longer functioning at all in 1MB shared memory. I'm not sure there is a whole l

Re: [HACKERS] Performance gain from reduction of GROUP BY memory

2005-08-30 Thread Bruce Momjian
Simon Riggs wrote: > On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 20:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I notice that Neil's patch regarding reducing the number of memory > > > allocations during aggregation operations isn't mentioned. It was > > > originally discussed in 8.0beta

Re: VACUUM/t_ctid bug (was Re: [HACKERS] GiST concurrency commited)

2005-08-30 Thread Tom Lane
Teodor Sigaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Is this something that can be fixed for 8.0.4? > Fixed in 8.0, 7.4 and 7.3 branches. Excellent news. Thanks. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched

Re: [HACKERS] Intermittent stats test failures on buildfarm

2005-08-30 Thread Tom Lane
Kris Jurka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Tom Lane wrote: >> What we are left with turns out to be multiple occurrences of the first >> pathology on exactly three buildfarm members: >> >> ferret Cygwin >> kudu Solaris 9, x86 >> dragonflySolaris 9, x86

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE ( smallinto -> boolean ) ...

2005-08-30 Thread Greg Stark
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You could do something like > > ... type boolean using case when field1=0 then false else true end; Or you could save typing and just use "USING field1<>0" Odd that everyone did a CASE for that. -- greg ---(end of broadcast)--

Re: [Slony1-general] Re: [HACKERS] dangling lock information?

2005-08-30 Thread David Parker
The slony log trigger saves execution plans, so any given connection that has been used with a slony schema installed will have cached OIDs referring to the sl_log_1 table. When you drop the schema, those OIDs obviously go away. When you re-create the schema, and try to use the old connection, it s

Re: [HACKERS] SHMMAX seems entirely broken in OS X 10.4.2

2005-08-30 Thread Jeff Trout
On Aug 30, 2005, at 12:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Did that. Set shmall first, shmall second, both together in one sysctl command; no joy anywhere. Are you trying this on fully up-to-date Tiger? Just ran software update and (besides a couple apps) it had a security update. skittlebrau:~

Re: [HACKERS] PG_DUMp

2005-08-30 Thread Andrew Dunstan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, You know how i can make a backup of database automatically? I have a script "pg_dump.exe DBNAME -U USER > FILE" but i don't know how put the password. If i put "-W password" the command line say that i put more paramatrers that the program accept. Yo

Re: [HACKERS] Intermittent stats test failures on buildfarm

2005-08-30 Thread Kris Jurka
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Tom Lane wrote: What we are left with turns out to be multiple occurrences of the first pathology on exactly three buildfarm members: ferret Cygwin kuduSolaris 9, x86 dragonfly Solaris 9, x86 So what to make of this? Du

[HACKERS] PG_DUMp

2005-08-30 Thread esolsona
Hi all, You know how i can make a backup of database automatically? I have a script "pg_dump.exe DBNAME -U USER  > FILE" but i don't know how put the password. If i put "-W password" the command line say that i put more paramatrers that the program accept. Best Regards

Re: VACUUM/t_ctid bug (was Re: [HACKERS] GiST concurrency commited)

2005-08-30 Thread Teodor Sigaev
We have queries that use ltree for sorting too, the sort looks like this: order by subpath(ltreefield, 0, nlevel(ltreefield) - 1) But concurrency leads to a bug, that results in an sql-error: ERROR: invalid positions contrib_regression=# select nlevel(t), subpath(t, 0, nlevel(t)-1) from te

Re: [HACKERS] dangling lock information?

2005-08-30 Thread Hannu Krosing
On E, 2005-08-29 at 13:09 +0200, Andreas Pflug wrote: > Hannu Krosing wrote: > > >On P, 2005-08-28 at 22:23 +0200, Andreas Pflug wrote: > > > > > >>I'm currently testing pgAdmin support for slony, on pgsql CVS HEAD, and > >>encounter strange problems from time to time. > >>After dropping and re

Re: [HACKERS] SHMMAX seems entirely broken in OS X 10.4.2

2005-08-30 Thread Dave Cramer
This is from my Powerbook in /etc/rc sysctl -w kern.sysv.shmmax=512 kern.sysv.shmmin=1 kern.sysv.shmmni=32 kern.sysv.shmseg=8 kern.sysv.shmall=1024 I also had to up maxprocperuid to 200 to get buildfarm to run I'm pretty sure shmall had to be increased to allow shmmax to be increased.

Re: VACUUM/t_ctid bug (was Re: [HACKERS] GiST concurrency commited)

2005-08-30 Thread Mario Weilguni
Am Dienstag, 30. August 2005 12:19 schrieb Teodor Sigaev: > > Since 7.4 we have troubles with ltree (seldom corruption of buffer cache, > > not on-disk), might this bug be somehow related to the ltree problem? 7.2 > > was rock-stable with ltree. > > Not sure. Fixed bug was (@ - contains operation):

Re: VACUUM/t_ctid bug (was Re: [HACKERS] GiST concurrency commited)

2005-08-30 Thread Teodor Sigaev
Since 7.4 we have troubles with ltree (seldom corruption of buffer cache, not on-disk), might this bug be somehow related to the ltree problem? 7.2 was rock-stable with ltree. Not sure. Fixed bug was (@ - contains operation): update wow set a = a || '{101}'::int[] where a @ '{1,2,3}'; select a

Re: VACUUM/t_ctid bug (was Re: [HACKERS] GiST concurrency commited)

2005-08-30 Thread Mario Weilguni
Am Dienstag, 30. August 2005 11:25 schrieb Teodor Sigaev: > Fixed in 8.0, 7.4 and 7.3 branches. > > Tom Lane wrote: > > Teodor Sigaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>http://www.sigaev.ru/gist/concur.pl > >>http://www.sigaev.ru/gist/concur.sh > > > > BTW, these scripts seem to indicate that there's

Re: [HACKERS] Query Sampling

2005-08-30 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 14:58 -0700, Varun Kacholia wrote: > > I assume you realise that Bernoulli sampling is currently possibly using > > the random() function and setseed() ? > Yes, select * from table where random() < x, does the job. > > > I can't see why TABLESAMPLE effects a sequential scan

Re: [HACKERS] Pre-allocated free space for row updating (like

2005-08-30 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 17:24 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Satoshi, > > > I've created a new patch which can be applied to the current cvs tree. > > > > http://dpsql.sourceforge.net/pctfree.cvs.diff > > Hmmm ... I don't see where I set the GUC. How am I supposed to vary the > PCTFREE amount? >

Re: VACUUM/t_ctid bug (was Re: [HACKERS] GiST concurrency commited)

2005-08-30 Thread Teodor Sigaev
Fixed in 8.0, 7.4 and 7.3 branches. Tom Lane wrote: Teodor Sigaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: http://www.sigaev.ru/gist/concur.pl http://www.sigaev.ru/gist/concur.sh BTW, these scripts seem to indicate that there's a GIST or contrib/intarray problem in the 8.0 branch. I was trying to use '

Re: [HACKERS] Performance gain from reduction of GROUP BY memory

2005-08-30 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 20:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I notice that Neil's patch regarding reducing the number of memory > > allocations during aggregation operations isn't mentioned. It was > > originally discussed in 8.0beta (2-3?) time. > > > What happ