Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Fujii Masao
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If a slave falls behind, how does it catch up? I guess you're saying that it can't fall behind, because the master will block before that happens. Also in asynchronous replication? And what about when the slave is

Re: [HACKERS] Keeping creation time of objects

2008-09-10 Thread Volkan YAZICI
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: AFAICS, PostgreSQL is not keeping info about when a table, database, sequence, etc was created. We cannot get that info even from OS, since CLUSTER or VACUUM FULL may change the metadata of corresponding relfilenode. When people

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Hannu Krosing
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 15:15 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If a slave falls behind, how does it catch up? I guess you're saying that it can't fall behind, because the master will block before that happens. Also in

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Pavan Deolasee
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because, at the time, current WAL position might be in the middle of WAL file. Even if the master sends only current WAL data, the slave which don't have the corresponding WAL file can not handle it. I agree, that

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 13:28 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's one thing I haven't figured out in this discussion. Does the write to the disk happen before or after the write to the slave? Can you guarantee that if

Re: [HACKERS] Keeping creation time of objects

2008-09-10 Thread Tino Wildenhain
Hi, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 15:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: why would creation time (as opposed to any other time, eg last schema modification, last data modification, yadda yadda) be especially significant? Hmm, those would be cool, too. maybe except last data

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 12:24 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: Also we may not want the master to be stuck while slave is doing the catchup. No, since it may take hours, not seconds. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Markus Wanner
Hi, Simon Riggs wrote: 1. Standby contacts primary and says it would like to catch up, but is currently at point X (which is a point at, or after the first consistent stopping point in WAL after standby has performed its own crash recovery, if any was required). 2. primary initiates data

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 13:28 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's one thing I haven't figured out in this discussion. Does the write to the disk happen before or after the write to the slave? Can you

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Pavan Deolasee
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The thing that bothers me is the behavior when the synchronous slave doesn't respond. A timeout has been discussed, after which the master just gives up on sending, and starts acting as if there's no slave. How's

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 11:10 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 13:28 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's one thing I haven't figured out in this discussion. Does the write

Re: [HACKERS] WIP patch: Collation support

2008-09-10 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Radek Strnad wrote: Progress so far: - created catalogs pg_collation a pg_charset which are filled with three standard collations - initdb changes rows called DEFAULT in both catalogs during the bki bootstrap phase with current system LC_COLLATE and LC_CTYPE or those set by command line. - new

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: Saying I want to wait for a synchronous commit and I am willing to wait for ever to ensure it leads to long hangs in some cases. Sure. That's the fundamental problem with synchronous replication. That's why many people choose asynchronous replication instead. Clearly at

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Csaba Nagy
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 20:59 +0200, Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT wrote: All in all a useful streamer seems like a lot of work. I mentioned some time ago an alternative idea of having the slave connect through a normal SQL connection and call a function which streams the WAL file from the point

Re: [HACKERS] WIP patch: Collation support

2008-09-10 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:29:14AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Radek Strnad wrote: - because of pg_collation and pg_charset are catalogs individual for each database, if you want to create a database with collation other than specified, create it in template1 and then create database I

Re: [HACKERS] Keeping creation time of objects

2008-09-10 Thread Hannu Krosing
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 09:27 +0300, Volkan YAZICI wrote: On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: AFAICS, PostgreSQL is not keeping info about when a table, database, sequence, etc was created. We cannot get that info even from OS, since CLUSTER or VACUUM FULL may change

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Hannu Krosing
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 10:06 +0200, Markus Wanner wrote: Hi, Simon Riggs wrote: 1. Standby contacts primary and says it would like to catch up, but is currently at point X (which is a point at, or after the first consistent stopping point in WAL after standby has performed its own crash

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Hannu Krosing
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 08:15 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: Any working solution needs to work for all required phases. If you did it this way, you'd never catch up at all. When you first make the copy, it will be made at time X. The point of consistency will be sometime later and requires WAL

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Fujii Masao
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 09:35 +0300, Hannu Krosing wrote: On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 15:15 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If a slave falls behind, how

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 10:06 +0200, Markus Wanner wrote: Hi, Simon Riggs wrote: 1. Standby contacts primary and says it would like to catch up, but is currently at point X (which is a point at, or after the first consistent stopping point in WAL after standby has performed its own crash

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 17:57 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: I cannot accept that WAL sender is blocked for initial setup. Yes, very important point. We definitely agree on that. The primary must be able to continue working while all this setup is happening. No tables are locked, all commits are

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Hi, Le mercredi 10 septembre 2008, Heikki Linnakangas a écrit : Sure. That's the fundamental problem with synchronous replication. That's why many people choose asynchronous replication instead. Clearly at some point you'll want to give up and continue without the slave, or kill the master

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 17:57 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: Umm.. I disagree with you ;) That's no problem and I respect your knowledge. If we disagree, it is very likely because we have misunderstood each other. Much has been written, so I will wait for it to all be read and understood by you and

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Markus Wanner
Hi, Simon Riggs wrote: The standby server won't come up until you have: * copied the base backup * sent it to standby server * bring up standby, have it realise it is a replication partner and begin requesting WAL from primary (in some way) Right. That was your assumption as well. Required

Re: [HACKERS] WIP patch: Collation support

2008-09-10 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:29:14AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Radek Strnad wrote: - because of pg_collation and pg_charset are catalogs individual for each database, if you want to create a database with collation other than specified, create it in template1

Re: [HACKERS] WIP patch: Collation support

2008-09-10 Thread Zdenek Kotala
Heikki Linnakangas napsal(a): Design functionality changes left: - move retrieveing collation from pg_database to pg_type The problem there is that pg_collation is local catalog, but pg_database is global catalog. IIRC, It was discussed during last commitfest. I think it is bad idea to

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 11:07 +0200, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: Hi, Le mercredi 10 septembre 2008, Heikki Linnakangas a écrit : Sure. That's the fundamental problem with synchronous replication. That's why many people choose asynchronous replication instead. Clearly at some point you'll want

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 09:35 +0300, Hannu Krosing wrote: On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 15:15 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If a slave falls behind, how does it catch up? I guess you're saying that it can't fall

Re: [HACKERS] WIP patch: Collation support

2008-09-10 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:51:02PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Since the set of collations isn't exactly denumerable, we need some way to allow the user to specify the collation they want. The only collation PostgreSQL knows about is the C collation. Anything else is user-defined.

[HACKERS] using hash index when BETWEEN is specified

2008-09-10 Thread Zdenek Kotala
I has played with new hash index implementation and I tried following command: postgres=# select * from test where id between 1 and 5; Time: 9651,033 ms postgres=# explain select * from test where id between 1 and 5; QUERY PLAN

Re: [HACKERS] using hash index when BETWEEN is specified

2008-09-10 Thread Asko Oja
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Zdenek Kotala [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I has played with new hash index implementation and I tried following command: postgres=# select * from test where id between 1 and 5; Time: 9651,033 ms postgres=# explain select * from test where id between 1 and 5;

Re: [HACKERS] using hash index when BETWEEN is specified

2008-09-10 Thread Robert Haas
I'm not planner guru but it seems to me that BETWEEN clause could be rewritten as a IN clause for integer data types and small interval. Where should the line be drawn. Define small :) When the estimated cost is lower? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

[HACKERS] Base64 decode/encode performance

2008-09-10 Thread Gaetano Mendola
Hi, I have been experimenting with some base64 encoding/decoding implementation. I find out that the one at http://code.google.com/p/stringencoders is the best obtaining a 1.3 speedup vs the postgres one. Do you think is worth to submit a patch that replaces the postgres base64 implementation

Re: [HACKERS] using hash index when BETWEEN is specified

2008-09-10 Thread Hannu Krosing
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 07:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: I'm not planner guru but it seems to me that BETWEEN clause could be rewritten as a IN clause for integer data types and small interval. Where should the line be drawn. Define small :) When the estimated cost is lower? You still

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Aidan Van Dyk
* Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080910 06:18]: We have a number of choices, at the point of failure: * Does the whole primary server stay up (probably)? The only sane choice is the one the admin makes. Any predetermined choice PG makes can (and will) be wrong in some situations. * Do we

Re: [HACKERS] Keeping creation time of objects

2008-09-10 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Hannu Krosing wrote: Timestamps should rather be considered a forensic tool. You may have the best VCS system, but if somebody bypasses it, you may still need to find out, when it was done. So you're arguing for modification time, which is not was Devrim is proposing -- he's proposing

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 09:36 -0400, Aidan Van Dyk wrote: * Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080910 06:18]: We have a number of choices, at the point of failure: * Does the whole primary server stay up (probably)? The only sane choice is the one the admin makes. Any predetermined choice

Re: [HACKERS] Keeping creation time of objects

2008-09-10 Thread Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Hi, On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 23:14 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Nothing is cost free. Every feature adds to code complexity, and has to be maintained. With full respect to you: I'm only talking about creation time. How much overhead and complexity are you expecting? Cheers, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ,

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Fujii Masao
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:55 PM, Markus Wanner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: Signals and locking, borrewed from Postgres-R, are now studied for the purpose in the log shipping, Cool. Let me know if you have any questions WRT this imessages stuff. If you're sure it's

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Markus Wanner
Hi, Fujii Masao wrote: On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:55 PM, Markus Wanner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: Signals and locking, borrewed from Postgres-R, are now studied for the purpose in the log shipping, Cool. Let me know if you have any questions WRT this imessages

Re: [HACKERS] using hash index when BETWEEN is specified

2008-09-10 Thread Zdenek Kotala
Hannu Krosing napsal(a): On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 07:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: I'm not planner guru but it seems to me that BETWEEN clause could be rewritten as a IN clause for integer data types and small interval. Where should the line be drawn. Define small :) When the estimated cost is

Re: [HACKERS] Base64 decode/encode performance

2008-09-10 Thread Marko Kreen
On 9/10/08, Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have been experimenting with some base64 encoding/decoding implementation. I find out that the one at http://code.google.com/p/stringencoders is the best obtaining a 1.3 speedup vs the postgres one. Do you think is worth to submit

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code

2008-09-10 Thread Ron Mayer
Robert Haas wrote: bits...bytes...blocks...m...M I can't imagine that taking away the B is somehow going to be more clear. If clarity is the goal, I'd want the following: a) Verbosely spelling out the units in the default config file temp_buffers = 16 megabytes or temp_buffers = 16

Re: [HACKERS] Base64 decode/encode performance

2008-09-10 Thread Mark Mielke
Marko Kreen wrote: (Note: the b64encode there reads 3 chars at a time, b64decode int32 at a time.) There are 2 killer problems: - decode does not seem to handle architectures that segfault on unaligned int32 accesses. Out of curiosity - does this problem exist on any platform for which

Re: [HACKERS] New FSM patch

2008-09-10 Thread Zdenek Kotala
Heikki Linnakangas napsal(a): Here's an updated FSM patch. Changes since last patch: Yesterday, I started to reviewing your patch. At the beginning I have general questions: 1) If I understand correctly the main goal is to improve FSM to cover all pages in file which is useful for huge

Re: [HACKERS] Base64 decode/encode performance

2008-09-10 Thread tomas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:44:00AM -0400, Mark Mielke wrote: Marko Kreen wrote: [...] - decode does not seem to handle architectures that segfault on unaligned int32 accesses. Out of curiosity - does this problem exist on any platform for which

Re: [HACKERS] Base64 decode/encode performance

2008-09-10 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:44:00AM -0400, Mark Mielke wrote: There are 2 killer problems: - decode does not seem to handle architectures that segfault on unaligned int32 accesses. Out of curiosity - does this problem exist on any platform for which PostgreSQL is currently ported and

Re: [HACKERS] New FSM patch

2008-09-10 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Zdenek Kotala wrote: Yesterday, I started to reviewing your patch. Thanks! 1) If I understand correctly the main goal is to improve FSM to cover all pages in file which is useful for huge database. That's not a goal per se, though it's true that the new FSM does cover all pages. The goals

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code

2008-09-10 Thread Robert Haas
a) Verbosely spelling out the units in the default config file temp_buffers = 16 megabytes or temp_buffers = 16 milliblocks :-) Naive users who favor cutpaste will use the verbose words that should leave little room for confusion. Power-users who know the short forms from the

[HACKERS] Interesting glitch in autovacuum

2008-09-10 Thread Tom Lane
I observed a curious bug in autovac just now. Since plain vacuum avoids calling GetTransactionSnapshot, an autovac worker that happens not to analyze any tables will never call GetTransactionSnapshot at all. This means it will arrive at vac_update_datfrozenxid with RecentGlobalXmin never having

Re: [HACKERS] Keeping creation time of objects

2008-09-10 Thread David Fetter
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 10:50:57PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: When people aren't keeping track of their DDL, that is very strictly a process problem on their end. When people are shooting themselves in the foot, it's a great disservice to market Kevlar shoes to them. I can't believe

Re: [HACKERS] using hash index when BETWEEN is specified

2008-09-10 Thread Tom Lane
Zdenek Kotala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think it depends of ration of unique integer number in a table and numbers of requested interval, number distribution and total number of rows. For example if you have 10 distinct number and each has 100 occurrence then full scan is better (for

Re: [HACKERS] Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch

2008-09-10 Thread Jeff Davis
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 09:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: 3. I think this is a must fix because of the point about volatile functions --- changing it later will result in user-visible semantics changes, so we have to get it right the first time. I don't entirely agree with #3. It is

Re: [HACKERS] Interesting glitch in autovacuum

2008-09-10 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: I observed a curious bug in autovac just now. Since plain vacuum avoids calling GetTransactionSnapshot, an autovac worker that happens not to analyze any tables will never call GetTransactionSnapshot at all. This means it will arrive at vac_update_datfrozenxid with

Re: [HACKERS] Interesting glitch in autovacuum

2008-09-10 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: I observed a curious bug in autovac just now. ... Maybe we should boot RecentGlobalXmin with InvalidOid, and ensure where it's going to be used that it's not that. Good idea --- an Assert at the use sites should be sufficient.

Re: [HACKERS] Interesting glitch in autovacuum

2008-09-10 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: Lastly, now that we have the PROC_IN_VACUUM test in GetSnapshotData, is it actually necessary for lazy vacuum to avoid setting a snapshot? It seems like it might be a good idea for it to do so in order to keep its

Re: [HACKERS] Interesting glitch in autovacuum

2008-09-10 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: I'm worried about keeping RecentGlobalXmin up to date during the vacuums, not only at the end, because it will be used for HOT page pruning during the vacuums. Oh, I see. I didn't know we were doing HOT pruning during vacuum; does it

Re: [HACKERS] Interesting glitch in autovacuum

2008-09-10 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Alvaro Herrera wrote: I didn't know we were doing HOT pruning during vacuum; does it make sense? Removing HOT-updated, dead tuples is a bit complicated. It needs to be done one HOT-chain at a time, and the root line pointer needs to be updated to the next live tuple in the chain.

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

2008-09-10 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 17:57 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: My sequence covers several cases : * There is no missing WAL file. * There is a lot of missing WAL file. This is the likely case for any medium+ sized database. * There are missing history files. Failover always generates the gap of

Re: [HACKERS] Planner question

2008-09-10 Thread Tom Raney
Tom Lane wrote: Tom Raney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why does the planner consider both input variations of each symmetric merge join? The README says there is not a lot of difference between the two options. When are there any differences? The righthand side needs to support mark/restore,

Re: [HACKERS] Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch

2008-09-10 Thread Robert Haas
I meant that -- hypothetically if we did accept the feature as-is -- the number of evaluations would be documented to be undefined, not N. That would avoid the backwards-compatibility problem. This one point is probably not worth discussing now, because argument #1 and #2 stand on their own.

Re: [HACKERS] Planner question

2008-09-10 Thread Tom Lane
Tom Raney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why does the index scan for tenk1 include a path key from onek.unique2? Is it implying an equivalence there? bench=# explain select * from tenk1 JOIN onek ON tenk1.unique2=onek.unique2; Yes, for an example like that the planner knows that tenk1.unique2

Re: [HACKERS] New FSM patch

2008-09-10 Thread Zdenek Kotala
Heikki Linnakangas napsal(a): Zdenek Kotala wrote: Do you still have the iGen setup available? Want to give it a shot? Not sure if I have it configured, need to check. But I'll try it or I'll ask Jignesh or Paul if they have a free time. They are real benchmark gurus.

Re: [HACKERS] Interesting glitch in autovacuum

2008-09-10 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 11:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I'm thinking that maybe an appropriate fix is to insert a GetTransactionSnapshot call at the beginning of InitPostgres' transaction, thus ensuring that every backend has some vaguely sane value for RecentGlobalXmin before it tries to do any

Re: [HACKERS] Interesting glitch in autovacuum

2008-09-10 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 11:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I'm thinking that maybe an appropriate fix is to insert a GetTransactionSnapshot call at the beginning of InitPostgres' transaction, thus ensuring that every backend has some vaguely sane value for

Re: [HACKERS] Planner question

2008-09-10 Thread Tom Raney
Tom Lane wrote: Tom Raney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why does the index scan for tenk1 include a path key from onek.unique2? Is it implying an equivalence there? bench=# explain select * from tenk1 JOIN onek ON tenk1.unique2=onek.unique2; Yes, for an example like that the planner knows

Re: [HACKERS] Interesting glitch in autovacuum

2008-09-10 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: Sorry, I got a bit confused there. The vacuum's intentional pruning will use its own OldestXmin variable, which is known current at the start of the vacuum (and I think there were even proposals to advance it more frequently than that). However, a vacuum could require some

Re: [HACKERS] Potential Join Performance Issue

2008-09-10 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 11:21 -0700, Lawrence, Ramon wrote: Our research group has been using the PostgreSQL code base to test new join algorithms. Sounds cool. I'm sure you'll come up with some good things. You might be interested in this also

Re: [HACKERS] Interesting glitch in autovacuum

2008-09-10 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 16:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: If there were a serious performance argument against that, then yeah, but I don't see one. Maybe! Just finishing other patch then I'll be starting Hot Standby discussions, so we'll see. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com

Re: [HACKERS] Interesting glitch in autovacuum

2008-09-10 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: Anyway I think we are on the same page about the rest of the issues. Did you want to work on fixing them, or shall I? Is this more or less what you had in mind? Yeah, this looks like exactly what I had in mind for HEAD. I'm not too

Re: [HACKERS] Interesting glitch in autovacuum

2008-09-10 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: Anyway I think we are on the same page about the rest of the issues. Did you want to work on fixing them, or shall I? Is this more or less what you had in mind? Yeah, this looks like exactly what I had in mind

Re: [HACKERS] Interesting glitch in autovacuum

2008-09-10 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: Yeah, this looks like exactly what I had in mind for HEAD. I'm not too sure about the back branches though. I think we could apply all of it to 8.3, but further back is going to require a separate investigation for each branch. Will you take that on? BTW, I did a quick look at all

Re: [HACKERS] Proposed patch: make SQL interval-literal syntax work per spec

2008-09-10 Thread Kevin Grittner
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The patch includes regression test changes that illustrate what it does. I am not sure about some of the corner cases --- anyone want to see if their understanding of the spec for interval string is different? The patch seems to support extensions to the

[HACKERS] Transaction Snapshots and Hot Standby

2008-09-10 Thread Simon Riggs
Transaction snapshots is probably the most difficult problem for Hot Standby to resolve. We *must* have a transaction snapshot to access table data in a consistent way, or we must accept some inconsistency, though that is not simple either. We can derive transaction snapshots * remotely

Re: [HACKERS] Proposed patch: make SQL interval-literal syntaxwork per spec

2008-09-10 Thread Kevin Grittner
Kevin Grittner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (4) I'm not 100% sure on this one, but it seemed to me that they were requiring year to be four digits and other components (except for fractional seconds) to be two digits. That can't be right. Maybe I saw that in datetime literal specs.

Re: [HACKERS] Proposed patch: make SQL interval-literal syntax work per spec

2008-09-10 Thread Tom Lane
Kevin Grittner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not sure about some of the corner cases --- anyone want to see if their understanding of the spec for interval string is different? The patch seems to support extensions to the standard. Right. All of these

Re: [HACKERS] Interesting glitch in autovacuum

2008-09-10 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: BTW, I did a quick look at all the uses of RecentGlobalXmin in the back branches, and I think we might be all right before 8.2. The older branches do in fact init RecentGlobalXmin to InvalidTransactionId, and the only thing they use it for is is this tuple dead to everyone

Re: [HACKERS] Proposed patch: make SQL interval-literal syntax work per spec

2008-09-10 Thread Josh Berkus
(1) In the spec, an interval value or literal must be either year-month or day-time. (I guess they didn't want to try to deal with the sticky issues of what it means to have an interval of, for example, seven months and three days -- since an interval has no sense of which seven months.)

Re: [HACKERS] Interesting glitch in autovacuum

2008-09-10 Thread Pavan Deolasee
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On reflection I'm not even sure that this is strictly an autovacuum bug. It can be cast more generically as RecentGlobalXmin getting used without ever having been set, and it sure looks to me like the HOT patch may have

[HACKERS] Commitfest patches mostly assigned ... status

2008-09-10 Thread Josh Berkus
Hackers, At this point, almost all patches have been assigned to reviewers. If you submitted a patch and don't get feedback by Saturday, take a look at who's in the reviewers column and send them a query. Since I have no way to track when patches are assigned to reviewers, I have no idea if