Re: [HACKERS] Problem with locks

2007-08-12 Thread Gregory Stark
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We're seeing a problem where occasionally a process appears to be granted a lock but miss its semaphore signal. Kernel bug maybe?

Re: [HACKERS] Problem with locks

2007-08-12 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Gregory Stark wrote: Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We're seeing a problem where occasionally a process appears to be granted a lock but miss its semaphore

Re: [HACKERS] proper way to fix information_schema.key_column_usage view

2007-08-12 Thread Peter Eisentraut
April Lorenzen wrote: I had to feel my way carrying out this fix, and I don't know if I did it right - I only know that it appears I no longer have the error. Please confirm whether I was supposed to execute all of share/information_schema.sql --- or just the portion that CREATEs or REPLACEs

Re: [HACKERS] Problem with locks

2007-08-12 Thread Pavel Stehule
2007/8/12, Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We're seeing a problem where occasionally a process appears to be granted a lock but miss its semaphore signal. Kernel

Re: [HACKERS] Problem with locks

2007-08-12 Thread Tom Lane
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've written a synthetic test program to check for lost semaphore wakeups. Seems to me this proves nothing much, since it doesn't use the same SysV semaphore API PG does. Please adjust so that it looks more like our code --- in particular there should be

Re: [HACKERS] Wrote a connect-by feature

2007-08-12 Thread Bertram Scharpf
Hi, Am Samstag, 11. Aug 2007, 19:57:59 -0400 schrieb Andrew Dunstan: You say you read the Developers FAQ, but you clearly ignored this entry: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.FAQ_DEV.html#item1.4 [...] you didn't seem to understand [...] Yes. I ignore and I don't understand. Thanks.

Re: [HACKERS] Problem with locks

2007-08-12 Thread Gregory Stark
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've written a synthetic test program to check for lost semaphore wakeups. Seems to me this proves nothing much, since it doesn't use the same SysV semaphore API PG does. Please adjust so that it looks more like our

Re: [HACKERS] Problem with locks

2007-08-12 Thread Tom Lane
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Seems to me this proves nothing much, since it doesn't use the same SysV semaphore API PG does. I was trying to copy the semaphore API exactly assuming USE_NAMED_POSIX_SEMAPHORES was *not* defined. According to the

Re: [HACKERS] Interesting misbehavior of repalloc()

2007-08-12 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We could also only do the realloc-in-place only if there isn't a 4k chunk in the 4k freelist. I'm imagining that usually there wouldn't be. Or in general, if there's a free chunk of the right size then copy to it, else consider

Re: [HACKERS] regexp_matches and regexp_split are inconsistent

2007-08-12 Thread Tom Lane
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Tom Lane wrote: Is this what we want? Arguably regexp_split is doing the most reasonable thing for its intended usage, but the strict definition of regexp matching seems to require what regexp_matches does. I think we need to