Re: [HACKERS] Keepalives win32

2010-06-30 Thread Pavel Golub
Hello, Bruce. You wrote: BM Tom Lane wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: What I was trying to say is I think we could dispense with the setsockopt() code path, and just always use the WSAIoctl() path anytime

Re: [HACKERS] GSoC - code of implementation of materialized views

2010-06-30 Thread Nicolas Barbier
2010/6/30 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com: By the way, does the SQL standard say anything about materialized views? AFAIK, nope. Probably for the same reason that indexes are not mentioned by the standard: both are only performance enhancements, and one could easily imagine future SQL

Re: [HACKERS] Keepalives win32

2010-06-30 Thread Magnus Hagander
2010/6/30 Pavel Golub pa...@microolap.com: Hello, Bruce. You wrote: BM Tom Lane wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: What I was trying to say is I think we could dispense with the setsockopt() code path,

Re: [HACKERS] Keepalives win32

2010-06-30 Thread Pavel Golub
Hello, Magnus. You wrote: MH 2010/6/30 Pavel Golub pa...@microolap.com: Hello, Bruce. You wrote: BM Tom Lane wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: What I was trying to say is I think we could dispense with

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers

2010-06-30 Thread Fujii Masao
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe.  As Heikki pointed out upthread, the standby can't even write the WAL to back to the OS until it's been fsync'd on the master without risking the problem under discussion. If we change the startup process so that

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Server crash while trying to read expression using pg_get_expr()

2010-06-30 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 15/06/10 15:19, Florian Pflug wrote: On Jun 15, 2010, at 9:31 , Heikki Linnakangas wrote: You could avoid changing the meaning of fn_expr by putting the check in the parse analysis phase, into transformFuncCall(). That would feel safer at least for back-branches. For 9.0, wouldn't a

Re: [HACKERS] Cannot cancel the change of a tablespace

2010-06-30 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: So this is not something we want fixed for 9.0, as indicated by Simon? I don't see the patch on the commit-fest

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers

2010-06-30 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:36 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: Before we get too busy frobnicating this gonkulator, I'd like to see a little more discussion of what kind of performance people are expecting from sync rep.  Sounds to me like the best we can expect here is, on every

[HACKERS] Check constraints on non-immutable keys

2010-06-30 Thread Magnus Hagander
We currently allow this: postgres=# create table t(a timestamptz not null primary key, check(a now())); NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index t_pkey for table t CREATE TABLE Which seems very wrong. For one thing, a dump of this database can not be restored if now() has

[HACKERS] Additional startup logging

2010-06-30 Thread Kevin Grittner
It seems potentially useful to LOG the version() string in the log file during startup. It might also help to LOG any settings which might result in the loss of committed transactions or in database corruption during startup. (After a crash, the postgresql.conf file might not show the values

Re: [HACKERS] Keepalives win32

2010-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: Do you have an opinion on the two choices for handling keepalives_idle and keepalives_interval? They basically are: 1) When not configured, use system defaults. When only one of the two parameters configured, use RFC default for the other one

Re: [HACKERS] Keepalives win32

2010-06-30 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 16:27, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: Do you have an opinion on the two choices for handling keepalives_idle and keepalives_interval? They basically are: 1) When not configured, use system defaults. When only one of the

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on non-immutable keys

2010-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: Shouldn't we disallow anything that's not IMMUTABLE in a check constraint? I think you'd get too many howls of pain ... also, such a restriction is likely contrary to SQL spec. The example seems to me to be in the category of so don't do that rather

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on non-immutable keys

2010-06-30 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 16:38, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: Shouldn't we disallow anything that's not IMMUTABLE in a check constraint? I think you'd get too many howls of pain ... also, such a restriction is likely contrary to SQL spec.

Re: [HACKERS] Keepalives win32

2010-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 16:27, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: It's hard to argue about this when most of us have no idea what these system defaults are, or whether they really are any different from the RFC values in the first place, or whether

Re: [HACKERS] Keepalives win32

2010-06-30 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 16:48, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 16:27, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: It's hard to argue about this when most of us have no idea what these system defaults are, or whether they really are

Re: [HACKERS] Keepalives win32

2010-06-30 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 16:27, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: It's hard to argue about this when most of us have no idea what these system defaults are, or whether they really are any different from the RFC values in the

Re: [HACKERS] Keepalives win32

2010-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: But you previously stated that this code was ignoring the registry values.  So doesn't system defaults boil down to whatever Windows' wired-in defaults are? The order is Windows wired-in-defaults - registry values - what app chooses. And yes, we

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on non-immutable keys

2010-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 16:38, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: The example seems to me to be in the category of so don't do that rather than something that we need to save users from.  Yes, it's In that case, should we at least throw a warning?

Re: [HACKERS] Keepalives win32

2010-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: I still like #1 because it affects the fewest people, and that option uses the RFC defaults only for unset values when others are set. What's your idea of affecting the fewest people? There is no previous history to be backward-compatible with, because we

Re: [HACKERS] Keepalives win32

2010-06-30 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: I still like #1 because it affects the fewest people, and that option uses the RFC defaults only for unset values when others are set. What's your idea of affecting the fewest people? There is no previous history to be

Re: [HACKERS] Keepalives win32

2010-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: Tom Lane wrote: What's your idea of affecting the fewest people? There is no previous history to be backward-compatible with, because we never supported keepalive on Windows before. Well, starting in 9.0, keepalives in libpq will default to 'on': Yes,

Re: [HACKERS] Keepalives win32

2010-06-30 Thread Kevin Grittner
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: Windows default for idle is 2 hours, for interval 1 second. And it defaults to five retries. With these settings, you could have a TCP connection break with as little as a five second network outage, if it happened to come after two hours of silence

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on non-immutable keys

2010-06-30 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 16:38, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: The example seems to me to be in the category of so don't do that rather than something that we need to save users

Re: [HACKERS] Keepalives win32

2010-06-30 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: Tom Lane wrote: What's your idea of affecting the fewest people? There is no previous history to be backward-compatible with, because we never supported keepalive on Windows before. Well, starting in 9.0, keepalives in libpq will

Re: [HACKERS] Keepalives win32

2010-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes: I also think we may want to suggest that for most environments, people may want to change these settings to something more aggressive, like a 30 to 120 second initial delay, with a 10 or 20 second retry interval. The RFC defaults seem

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on non-immutable keys

2010-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: My scintillating contribution to this discussion is the observation that unrestorable dumps suck. No doubt, but is this a real problem in practice? I can't recall many field complaints about it. And the ones I do recall wouldn't have been prevented by

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on non-immutable keys

2010-06-30 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: My scintillating contribution to this discussion is the observation that unrestorable dumps suck. No doubt, but is this a real problem in practice? Magnus tells me that that was

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on non-immutable keys

2010-06-30 Thread Richard Huxton
On 30/06/10 17:11, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com writes: My scintillating contribution to this discussion is the observation that unrestorable dumps suck. No doubt, but is this a real problem in

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0beta2 - server crash when using HS + SR

2010-06-30 Thread Bruce Momjian
Fujii Masao wrote: On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: I wouldn't be adverse to improving the error messages emitted when this happens by the server to make it more obvious what's gone wrong in 9.1. ?That's the only genuine improvement I'd see value in

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on non-immutable keys

2010-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I can't recall many field complaints about it.  And the ones I do recall wouldn't have been prevented by a check as stupid as are there immutable functions in here. Hopefully there

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on non-immutable keys

2010-06-30 Thread Richard Huxton
On 30/06/10 18:11, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 18:33, Richard Huxtond...@archonet.com wrote: IMHO The real solution would be something that could strip/rewrite the constraint on restore rather than trying to prevent people being stupid though. People *will* just tag their

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on non-immutable keys

2010-06-30 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 18:33, Richard Huxton d...@archonet.com wrote: On 30/06/10 17:11, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us  wrote: Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com  writes: My scintillating contribution to this discussion is the observation

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0beta2 - server crash when using HS + SR

2010-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: FATAL: directory /path_to/ts does not exist HINT: create /path_to/ts directory for tablespace before restarting the server CONTEXT: xlog redo create ts: 16384 /path_to/ts This is an interesting patch idea. One problem with the patch is that

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0beta2 - server crash when using HS + SR

2010-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: The attached patch shows the hint only during recovery. BTW, it would be easier and more consistent with the rest of the code to look at InRecovery, instead of messing around with the function signature. And the usual way to emit a hint conditionally is

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on non-immutable keys

2010-06-30 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 19:16, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I can't recall many field complaints about it.  And the ones I do recall wouldn't have been prevented by a check as

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on non-immutable keys

2010-06-30 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: We currently allow this: postgres=# create table t(a timestamptz not null primary key, check(a now())); NOTICE:  CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index t_pkey for table t CREATE TABLE Which seems

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on non-immutable keys

2010-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 19:16, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I concur with the thought that the most useful solution might be a way to tell pg_restore to remove or disable check constraints. Uh, say what? Are you saying pg_restore should

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Server crash while trying to read expression using pg_get_expr()

2010-06-30 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 23/06/10 21:36, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: On 15/06/10 10:31, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: You could avoid changing the meaning of fn_expr by putting the check in the parse analysis phase, into

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on non-immutable keys

2010-06-30 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 20:13, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 19:16, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I concur with the thought that the most useful solution might be a way to tell pg_restore to remove or disable check

Re: [HACKERS] Admission Control

2010-06-30 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 13:10 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: The problem with centralized resource control We should talk about the problem of lack of centralized resource control as well, to balance. Another well observed problem is that work_mem is user settable, so many programs acting together

[HACKERS] Keeping separate WAL segments for each database

2010-06-30 Thread Devrim GÜNDÜZ
I talked to Sybase people about their latest technologies. Many features that shipped with their latest ASE 15.5 product has been in PostgreSQL since many years (like functional indexes, etc). :) One of the things that interested me was parallel recovery feature. They said that they are keeping

Re: [HACKERS] Keepalive for max_standby_delay

2010-06-30 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 10:09 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: It will get done. It is not the very first thing on my to-do list. ??? What is then? If it's not the first thing on your priority list, with 9.0 getting later by the day, maybe we should leave it to Robert and Simon, who *do* seem

Re: [HACKERS] Keeping separate WAL segments for each database

2010-06-30 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Devrim GÜNDÜZ's message of mié jun 30 14:54:06 -0400 2010: One of the things that interested me was parallel recovery feature. They said that they are keeping separate xlogs for each database, which speeds ups recovery in case of a crash. It also would increase performance,

Re: [HACKERS] Issue: Deprecation of the XML2 module 'xml_is_well_formed' function

2010-06-30 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from David Fetter's message of lun jun 28 12:00:47 -0400 2010: While tracking this down, I didn't see a way to get SQLSTATE or the corresponding condition name via psql. Is this an oversight? A bug, perhaps? IIRC \pset VERBOSITY verbose to get the SQLSTATE. I don't think you can

Re: [HACKERS] Keepalive for max_standby_delay

2010-06-30 Thread Bruce Momjian
Simon Riggs wrote: On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 10:09 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: It will get done. It is not the very first thing on my to-do list. ??? What is then? If it's not the first thing on your priority list, with 9.0 getting later by the day, maybe we should leave it to Robert

Re: [HACKERS] LLVM / clang

2010-06-30 Thread Gibheer
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:49:40 -0400, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: For the record, here is a patch that would address these issues. At the moment, I'm waiting to get my hands on the new version 2.7 of clang to see if some of these issues have gone away. Considering that clang

Re: [HACKERS] Error with GIT Repository

2010-06-30 Thread Daniel Farina
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: Especially if someone has a clue how to do it. The last time I fixed it by runnin repack, but that didn't work this time. I have no clue why it's asking for a file that doesn't exist. Does the repo run  

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on non-immutable keys

2010-06-30 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On ons, 2010-06-30 at 10:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: Shouldn't we disallow anything that's not IMMUTABLE in a check constraint? I think you'd get too many howls of pain ... also, such a restriction is likely contrary to SQL spec. kibo The search

Re: [HACKERS] LLVM / clang

2010-06-30 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On ons, 2010-06-30 at 20:10 +0200, Gibheer wrote: On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:49:40 -0400, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: For the record, here is a patch that would address these issues. At the moment, I'm waiting to get my hands on the new version 2.7 of clang to see if some of

Re: [HACKERS] Keeping separate WAL segments for each database

2010-06-30 Thread Robert Haas
2010/6/30 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com: Excerpts from Devrim GÜNDÜZ's message of mié jun 30 14:54:06 -0400 2010: One of the things that interested me was parallel recovery feature. They said that they are keeping separate xlogs for each database, which speeds ups recovery in case

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on non-immutable keys

2010-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: kibo The search condition shall simply contain a boolean value expression that is retrospectively deterministic. This is then defined in a rather complex manner that ends up disallowing col now() but allowing col now(). /kibo Oh, cute. Seems to

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on non-immutable keys

2010-06-30 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: kibo The search condition shall simply contain a boolean value expression that is retrospectively deterministic. This is then defined in a rather complex manner that ends up

Re: [HACKERS] Keeping separate WAL segments for each database

2010-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: I think one per database and one extra one for the shared catalogs would be enough. Most transactions would either touch either just the database, or just the shared catalogs, so you'd write the commit record in whichever stream was appropriate. If

Re: [HACKERS] Keeping separate WAL segments for each database

2010-06-30 Thread Robert Haas
2010/6/30 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: I think one per database and one extra one for the shared catalogs would be enough.  Most transactions would either touch either just the database, or just the shared catalogs, so you'd write the commit record in

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on non-immutable keys

2010-06-30 Thread Chris Browne
mag...@hagander.net (Magnus Hagander) writes: I concur with the thought that the most useful solution might be a way to tell pg_restore to remove or disable check constraints. Uh, say what? Are you saying pg_restore should actually remove something from the database schema? And thus no longer

Re: [HACKERS] Admission Control

2010-06-30 Thread Mark Kirkwood
On 29/06/10 05:36, Josh Berkus wrote: Having tinkered with it, I'll tell you that (2) is actually a very hard problem, so any solution we implement should delay as long as possible in implementing (2). In the case of Greenplum, what Mark did originally IIRC was to check against the global

Re: [HACKERS] Keeping separate WAL segments for each database

2010-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: 2010/6/30 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us: Surely you'd have to roll back, not commit, in that situation.  You have no excuse for assuming that you've replayed all effects of the transaction. Hmm, good point. But you could make it work either way, I

Re: [HACKERS] 9.0beta2 - server crash when using HS + SR

2010-06-30 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: The attached patch shows the hint only during recovery. BTW, it would be easier and more consistent with the rest of the code to look at InRecovery, instead of messing around with the function signature. And the usual way to emit a

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on non-immutable keys

2010-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: The detailed definition is amazingly laborious and yet limited, though, as it basically doesn't address the problem except for that specific case and close relatives. Well, solving

Re: [HACKERS] Keeping separate WAL segments for each database

2010-06-30 Thread Robert Haas
2010/6/30 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us: (thinks some more...)  Maybe you don't even need the fencepoint record per se.  I think all it's doing for you is making sure you don't process commit records on different streams out-of-order.  There might be some other, more direct way to do that.

Re: [HACKERS] Keeping separate WAL segments for each database

2010-06-30 Thread Joe Conway
On 06/30/2010 05:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote: And at any rate, the per-database thing isn't really the design goal, anyway. FWIW, I've run into more than one client where PITR and/or warm standby on a per-database level would be a killer feature. Joe signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital

Re: [HACKERS] Keeping separate WAL segments for each database

2010-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: You need to make sure not only that you replay commit records in order, but also that, for example, you don't replay an XLOG_HEAP2_CLEAN record too early. Hm, good point. That probably means that you *do* need fencepost records, and furthermore that

Re: [HACKERS] server authentication over Unix-domain sockets

2010-06-30 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tis, 2010-06-22 at 09:37 +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote: As you described at the source code comments as follows, it is not portable except for Linux due to the getsockopt() API. + // TODO: currently Linux-only code, needs to be made + // portable; see

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming Replication: Checkpoint_segment and wal_keep_segments on standby

2010-06-30 Thread Bruce Momjian
Did these changes ever get into the docs? I don't think so. --- Fujii Masao wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: --- 1902,1908 ? ? ? ? ?for

Re: [HACKERS] Additional startup logging

2010-06-30 Thread Takahiro Itagaki
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote: It seems potentially useful to LOG the version() string in the log file during startup. It might also help to LOG any settings which might result in the loss of committed transactions or in database corruption during startup. (After a

Re: [HACKERS] Additional startup logging

2010-06-30 Thread Michael Glaesemann
On Jun 30, 2010, at 22:43 , Takahiro Itagaki wrote: Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote: It seems potentially useful to LOG the version() string in the log file during startup. It might also help to LOG any settings which might result in the loss of committed transactions

Re: [HACKERS] Streaming Replication: Checkpoint_segment and wal_keep_segments on standby

2010-06-30 Thread Fujii Masao
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Did these changes ever get into the docs?  I don't think so. Thanks for reminding me. I attached the updated patch. That last sentence is a bit unclear. How about: A restartpoint is triggered if at least one

Re: parallelizing subplan execution (was: [HACKERS] explain and PARAM_EXEC)

2010-06-30 Thread Mark Wong
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Mark Wong mark...@gmail.com wrote: http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~dewitt/includes/publications.html Some of these papers aren't the type of parallelism we're talking about here, but the ones

Re: [HACKERS] Keepalives win32

2010-06-30 Thread Pavel Golub
Hello, Tom. You wrote: TL Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: Tom Lane wrote: What's your idea of affecting the fewest people? There is no previous history to be backward-compatible with, because we never supported keepalive on Windows before. Well, starting in 9.0, keepalives in libpq