[HACKERS] Tablespaces oddity?

2006-03-27 Thread Philip Yarra
Hi folks after discussing this on IRC today (thanks G_SabinoMullane!), I'm still surprised by this behaviour on 8.1.3: pyarra=# create TABLESPACE spctables location '/mnt/pg_tables/data'; CREATE TABLESPACE pyarra=# create table foo(id int) tablespace spctables; CREATE TABLE pyarra=# \d foo

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] PANIC: heap_update_redo: no block

2006-03-27 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I think what's happened here is that VACUUM FULL moved the only tuple >> off page 1 of the relation, then truncated off page 1, and now >> heap_update_redo is panicking because it can't find page 1 to replay the >> mov

Re: [HACKERS] Why are default encoding conversions namespace-specific?

2006-03-27 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane said: > "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Tom Lane said: >>> What does it mean to have different "default" encoding conversions in >>> different schemas? Even if this had a sensible interpretation, I >>> don't think the existing code implements it properly. > >> perhaps I'm

Re: [HACKERS] Why are default encoding conversions namespace-specific?

2006-03-27 Thread Tom Lane
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane said: >> What does it mean to have different "default" encoding conversions in >> different schemas? Even if this had a sensible interpretation, I don't >> think the existing code implements it properly. > perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but w

Re: [HACKERS] Why are default encoding conversions namespace-specific?

2006-03-27 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane said: > Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> I don't mind having encoding conversions be named within schemas, but >>> I propose that any given encoding pair be allowed to have only one >>> default conversion, period, and that when we are looking for a >>> default conversion we fin

Re: [HACKERS] Why are default encoding conversions namespace-specific?

2006-03-27 Thread Tom Lane
Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I don't mind having encoding conversions be named within schemas, >> but I propose that any given encoding pair be allowed to have only >> one default conversion, period, and that when we are looking for >> a default conversion we find it by a non-namespa

Re: [HACKERS] Why are default encoding conversions

2006-03-27 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
> See $SUBJECT. It seems to me this is a bad idea for much the same > reasons that we recently decided default index operator classes should > not be namespace-specific: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-02/msg00284.php > > I don't mind having encoding conversions be named withi

Re: [HACKERS] Domains as Subtypes

2006-03-27 Thread Tom Lane
elein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:41:30AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> I remembered the problem with doing it that way: an input function can't >> enforce a domain NOTNULL constraint, because it won't even get invoked >> for a null input value. So there seems no way aroun

Re: [HACKERS] Domains as Subtypes

2006-03-27 Thread elein
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:41:30AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > elein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > But I like the idea of centralizing the check in the input/output > > functions. It seems clearer and cleaner. > > I remembered the problem with doing it that way: an input function can't > enforce a

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] PANIC: heap_update_redo: no block

2006-03-27 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This sounds familiar > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-05/msg01369.php Hm, I had totally forgotten about that todo item :-(. Time to push it back up the priority list. regards, tom lane --

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] PANIC: heap_update_redo: no block

2006-03-27 Thread Greg Stark
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think what's happened here is that VACUUM FULL moved the only tuple > off page 1 of the relation, then truncated off page 1, and now > heap_update_redo is panicking because it can't find page 1 to replay the > move. Curious that we've not seen a case like

Re: [HACKERS] proposal - plpgsql: execute using into

2006-03-27 Thread Tom Lane
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Current EXECUTE statemtn doesn't support other way for parametrisation than > concating strings. It works well but it's little bit unreadable. Oracle's > statement EXECUTE has positional replacement feature. > ... > There are some problems about repla

[HACKERS] proposal - plpgsql: execute using into

2006-03-27 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello Current EXECUTE statemtn doesn't support other way for parametrisation than concating strings. It works well but it's little bit unreadable. Oracle's statement EXECUTE has positional replacement feature. It works similar our RAISE statement (when position holder is %). EXECUTE position h

Re: [HACKERS] Shared memory

2006-03-27 Thread Thomas Hallgren
Tom Lane wrote: Thomas Hallgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tom Lane wrote: It's only that much difference? Given all the other advantages of separating the JVM from the backends, I'd say you should gladly pay that price. If I'm right, and the most common scenario is clients us

[HACKERS] Why are default encoding conversions namespace-specific?

2006-03-27 Thread Tom Lane
See $SUBJECT. It seems to me this is a bad idea for much the same reasons that we recently decided default index operator classes should not be namespace-specific: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-02/msg00284.php I don't mind having encoding conversions be named within schemas, b

Re: [HACKERS] Domains as Subtypes

2006-03-27 Thread Tom Lane
elein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But I like the idea of centralizing the check in the input/output > functions. It seems clearer and cleaner. I remembered the problem with doing it that way: an input function can't enforce a domain NOTNULL constraint, because it won't even get invoked for a nu

Re: [HACKERS] Shared memory

2006-03-27 Thread Tom Lane
Thomas Hallgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> It's only that much difference? Given all the other advantages of >> separating the JVM from the backends, I'd say you should gladly pay >> that price. >> > If I'm right, and the most common scenario is clients using connection pool

Re: [HACKERS] Shared memory

2006-03-27 Thread Thomas Hallgren
Tom Lane wrote: It's only that much difference? Given all the other advantages of separating the JVM from the backends, I'd say you should gladly pay that price. If I'm right, and the most common scenario is clients using connection pools, then it's very likely that you don't get any advantage

Re: [HACKERS] Shared memory

2006-03-27 Thread Tom Lane
Thomas Hallgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The real downside is that a call from SQL to PL/Java using the current > in-process approach is really fast. It takes about 5 micro secs on my > 2.8GHz i386 box. The overhead of an IPC-call on that box is about 18 > micro secs on Linux and 64 micro secs

Re: [HACKERS] Recovery from multi trouble

2006-03-27 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 12:14 +0900, OKADA Satoshi wrote: >> Our aim is giving database recovery chances to a database administrator >> at PostgreSQL startup time when there is possibility of data loss of >> losing log files. > There is no possibility of dat

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] PANIC: heap_update_redo: no block

2006-03-27 Thread Tom Lane
[ redirecting to a more appropriate mailing list ] "Alex bahdushka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > LOG: REDO @ D/19176610; LSN D/19176644: prev D/191765E8; xid 81148979: Heap > - clean: rel 1663/16386/16559898; blk 0 > LOG: REDO @ D/19176644; LSN D/191766A4: prev D/19176610; xid 81148979: Heap

Re: [HACKERS] Remote administration contrib module

2006-03-27 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 3/27/2006 3:00 PM To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Cc: Dave Page Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Remote administration contrib module Am Montag, 27. März 2006 15:12 schrieb Dave Page: > > So, how would people feel abo

Re: [HACKERS] Remote administration contrib module

2006-03-27 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Am Montag, 27. März 2006 15:12 schrieb Dave Page: > So, how would people feel about including this as > a contrib module in the future, until(/if) equivalent functionality > becomes available in -core in some form? Right now you have got plenty of time to get it in shape for inclusion in core, so

[HACKERS] Remote administration contrib module

2006-03-27 Thread Dave Page
A thread on -general (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2006-03/msg01023.php) recently ended in the idea that the pgAdmin 'adminpack' be included as an 'official' PostgreSQL contrib module. Currently the code is an add-on available from the pgAdmin website, unless you run the Windows pgI

Re: [HACKERS] Shared memory

2006-03-27 Thread Thomas Hallgren
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:57:21AM +0200, Thomas Hallgren wrote: Martijn, I tried a Socket approach. Using the new IO stuff that arrived with Java 1.4 (SocketChannel etc.), the performance is really good. Especially on Linux where an SMP machine show a 1 to 1.5 r

Re: [HACKERS] Shared memory

2006-03-27 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:57:21AM +0200, Thomas Hallgren wrote: > Martijn, > > I tried a Socket approach. Using the new IO stuff that arrived with Java > 1.4 (SocketChannel etc.), the performance is really good. Especially on > Linux where an SMP machine show a 1 to 1.5 ratio between one proces

Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 planning features

2006-03-27 Thread Csaba Nagy
> - Postgres intrinsic log-shipping replication (we have one to contribute) Are you saying you have a working WAL-shipping based portable (means working well on all platforms) replication already done ? Cause I was looking into implementing just this one :-) Do you have some details how it works

Re: [HACKERS] Shared memory

2006-03-27 Thread Thomas Hallgren
Martijn, I tried a Socket approach. Using the new IO stuff that arrived with Java 1.4 (SocketChannel etc.), the performance is really good. Especially on Linux where an SMP machine show a 1 to 1.5 ratio between one process doing ping-pong between two threads and two processes doing ping-pong u

Re: [HACKERS] Nightly builds

2006-03-27 Thread Magnus Hagander
> >> I for one am still struggling with Kerberos on Windows, > and it would > >> be a great help for me to know where to get libraries and headers > >> from. > > > > The pginstaller README might help you - it contains the > steps used to > > build it for the installer... > > One of my proble

Re: [HACKERS] Nightly builds

2006-03-27 Thread Albe Laurenz
>> I for one am still struggling with Kerberos on Windows, and >> it would be a great help for me to know where to get >> libraries and headers from. > > The pginstaller README might help you - it contains the steps used to > build it for the installer... One of my problems is that it needs VC+

Re: [HACKERS] Recovery from multi trouble

2006-03-27 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 12:14 +0900, OKADA Satoshi wrote: > Our aim is giving database recovery chances to a database administrator > at PostgreSQL startup time when there is possibility of data loss of > losing log files. There is no possibility of data loss because of loss of a single log file, i