Hi,
I am working on patch adding xmlvalidate() functionality. LibXML 2.7.7 improved
DTD, XSD, Relax-NG validation, so using that. I have idea of creating system
table for holding DTDs, XSDs, Relax-NGs (similar as on ORACLE).
Is that good idea? If so, how to implement that table? pg_attribute
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Thanks!
The _oid variants will have to re-appear in the alter extension set
schema patch, which is the last of the series. Meanwhile, I will have
to merge head with the current extension patch (already overdue for
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Jan Urbański (wulc...@wulczer.org) wrote:
On 04/11/10 14:09, Robert Haas wrote:
Hmm, I wonder how useful this is given that restriction.
As
On 11/28/2010 05:33 AM, Tomáš Pospíšil wrote:
Hi,
I am working on patch adding xmlvalidate() functionality. LibXML 2.7.7 improved
DTD, XSD, Relax-NG validation, so using that. I have idea of creating system
table for holding DTDs, XSDs, Relax-NGs (similar as on ORACLE).
Is that good idea?
On 28/11/10 05:23, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 11/27/2010 10:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
=?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFVyYmHFhHNraQ==?=wulc...@wulczer.org writes:
I noticed that PL/Python uses a simple wrapper around malloc that does
ereport(FATAL) if malloc returns NULL. I find it a bit harsh, don't we
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:02:33PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
In recent discussions of the plan-tree representation for KNNGIST index
scans, there seemed to be agreement that it'd be a good idea to explicitly
represent the expected sort ordering of the output. While thinking about
how best to do
Hi list,
Often enough when developing PostgreSQL views and functions, I have
pasted the CREATE OR REPLACE commands into the wrong window/shell and
ran them there without realizing that I'm creating a function in the
wrong database, instead of replacing. Currently psql does not provide
any
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not totally convinced that this is the correct behavior. It seems
a bit surprising that UPDATE privilege on a single column is enough to
lock out all SELECT activity from the table. It's actually a bit
surprising
Marti Raudsepp ma...@juffo.org writes:
This patch returns command tag CREATE X or REPLACE X for
LANGAUGE/VIEW/RULE/FUNCTION. This is done by passing completionTag to
from ProcessUtility to more functions, and adding a 'bool *didUpdate'
argument to some lower-level functions. I'm not sure if
On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 19:11 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
2010/11/25 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
(2010/10/16 4:49), Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
[Moving to -hackers]
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Simon Riggssi...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 09:41 -0400, Josh
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:44:52AM +0100, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
a question came to us in the form of a code example,
which I shortened. Say, we have this structure:
...
Any comment on why it isn't done?
Missing feature. Originally the pure text based statement copying wasn't able
to cope
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Not sure that information moves us forward. If the postmaster cleared
the memory, we would have COW in the child and probably be even slower.
Well, we can determine the answers
=?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFVyYmHFhHNraQ==?= wulc...@wulczer.org writes:
I'll do that for PL/Python for now. While on the topic of needless FATAL
errors, if you try to create a Python 3 function in a session that
already loaded Python 2, you get a FATAL error with an errhint of
Start a new session to use
On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 14:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
This is discouraging; it certainly doesn't make me want to expend the
effort to develop a production patch.
Perhaps.
Why do this only for shared memory? Surely the majority of memory
accesses are to private memory, so being able to allocate
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 14:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
This is discouraging; it certainly doesn't make me want to expend the
effort to develop a production patch.
Perhaps.
Why do this only for shared memory?
There's no exposed API for causing a
On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 12:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 14:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
This is discouraging; it certainly doesn't make me want to expend the
effort to develop a production patch.
Perhaps.
Why do this only for
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 12:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
There's no exposed API for causing a process's regular memory to become
hugepages.
We could make all the palloc stuff into shared memory also (private
shared memory that is). We're not likely to run
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Not sure that information moves us forward. If the postmaster cleared
the memory, we would have COW in the
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 02:32:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Sure, but 4MB of memory is enough to require 1000 TLB entries, which is
more than enough to blow the TLB even on a Nehalem.
That can't possibly be right. I'm sure the chip designers have heard of
programs using more than 4MB.
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
If you look closely at what we're doing with sort operators
(get_ordering_op_properties pretty much encapsulates this), it turns out
that a sort operator is shorthand for three pieces of information:
1. btree opfamily OID
2. specific input datatype for the
Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Not sure that information moves us forward. ?If the postmaster cleared
the memory, we would have COW in the child and probably be even slower.
Well, we can determine the answers to these questions
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
The more general issue here is what to do about our
high backend startup costs. Beyond trying to recycle backends for new
connections, as I've previous proposed and with all the problems it
entails, the only thing that looks promising here is to try
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
So to fix these problems we'd need to replace sort operator OIDs in
SortGroupClause and plan nodes with those three items. Obviously, this
would be slightly bulkier, but the extra cost added to copying parse
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 19:11 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
2010/11/25 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
(2010/10/16 4:49), Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
[Moving to -hackers]
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Simon
Well, it's been a productive holiday weekend. I've completed the
switch of the SSI implementation from one conflict pointer in and one
conflict pointer out per transaction to a list of conflicts between
transactions. This eliminated all false positives in my dtester
suite. The only test which
I wrote:
(For some extra amusement, trace through where
build_index_pathkeys' data comes from...)
While I don't propose to implement right away the whole SortGroupClause
and plan tree modification sketched above, I did look into fixing
build_index_pathkeys so that it doesn't uselessly convert
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 02:27:12PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
We've gotten a few inquiries about whether Postgres can use huge pages
under Linux. In principle that should be more efficient for large shmem
regions, since fewer TLB entries are needed to support the address
space. I spent a bit of
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 5:38 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
I haven' t thought of a way to test this, so I guess I'll just ask.
If the attacking client just waits a few milliseconds for a response
and then
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
The more general issue here is what to do about our
high backend startup costs. Beyond trying to recycle backends for new
connections, as I've previous proposed and with all the
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
After our recent conversation
about KNNGIST, it occurred to me to wonder whether there's really any
point in pretending that a user can usefully add an AM, both due to
hard-wired planner knowledge and due to lack of any sort of extensible
XLOG
(2010/11/27 9:11), Robert Haas wrote:
2010/11/25 KaiGai Koheikai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
(2010/10/16 4:49), Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
[Moving to -hackers]
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Simon Riggssi...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 09:41 -0400, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
On Thu,
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 5:38 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
I haven' t thought of a way to test this, so I guess I'll just ask.
If the
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
After our recent conversation
about KNNGIST, it occurred to me to wonder whether there's really any
point in pretending that a user can usefully add an AM, both due to
hard-wired
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 5:38 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
I
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, I wasn't complaining. I think that having max_connections be
charged for the duration even if the socket is dropped is the only
reasonable thing to do, and wanted to verify that it did happen.
Otherwise the module
Kenneth Marshall k...@rice.edu writes:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 02:27:12PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
... A bigger problem is that the shmem request size must be a
multiple of the system's hugepage size, which is *not* a constant
even though the test patch just uses 2MB as the assumed value. For a
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
One possible way to get a real speedup here would be to look for ways
to trim the number of catcaches.
BTW, it's not going to help to remove catcaches that have a small
initial size, as the pg_am cache certainly does. If the bucket zeroing
cost is
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Marti Raudsepp ma...@juffo.org writes:
This patch returns command tag CREATE X or REPLACE X for
LANGAUGE/VIEW/RULE/FUNCTION. This is done by passing completionTag to
from ProcessUtility to more functions, and adding a 'bool
BTW, this might be premature to mention pending some tests about mapping
versus zeroing overhead, but it strikes me that there's more than one
way to skin a cat. I still think the idea of statically allocated space
sucks. But what if we rearranged things so that palloc0 doesn't consist
of
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I think more expessive command tags are in general a good thing. The
idea that this particular change would be useful primarily for humans
examining the psql output seems a bit weak to me, but I can easily see
it being useful for programs. Right now
I wrote:
Now, this loss of flexibility doesn't particularly bother me, because
I know of no existing or contemplated btree-substitute access methods.
If one did appear on the horizon, there are a couple of ways we could
fix the problem, the cleanest being to let a non-btree opfamily declare
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I would expect that you can just iterate through the size possibilities
pretty quickly and just use the first one that works -- no /proc
groveling.
It's not really that easy, because (at least on the kernel version I
Dear all,
In our company, we use both PostgreSQL and MySQL, our developers include me
think that the INSERT ... ON DUPLICATE UPDATE clause is a much more user
friendly function,so, would you please add this liked function in
PostgreSQL, I know we can write PROCEDURE or RULE to solve this
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 1:18 AM, KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
The attached patch is revised version.
- Logging part within auth_delay was removed. This module now focuses on
injection of a few seconds delay
Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu writes:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Really you do want to scrape the value.
Couldn't we just round the shared memory allocation down to a multiple
of 4MB? That would handle all older architectures where the size is
2MB or
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The most portable way to do that would be to use calloc insted of malloc,
and hope that libc is smart enough to provide freshly-mapped space.
It would be good to look and see whether glibc actually does so,
of course. If not
Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu writes:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Another question that would be worth asking here is whether the
hand-baked MemSet macro still outruns memset on modern architectures.
I think it's been quite a few years since that was last
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 05:58, Steve Singer ssin...@ca.afilias.info wrote:
The attached version of the patch gets your regression tests to pass.
I'm going to mark this as ready for a committer.
I think we need more discussions about the syntax:
ALTER TABLE table_name ADD PRIMARY KEY (...)
On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 01:11 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
That would mean running GetCurrentTransactionId() inside LockAcquire()
if (lockmode = AccessExclusiveLock
locktag-locktag_type == LOCKTAG_RELATION
!RecoveryInProgress())
(void)
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
One possible way to get a real speedup here would be to look for ways
to trim the number of catcaches.
BTW, it's not going to help to remove catcaches that have a small
initial size,
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Itagaki Takahiro
itagaki.takah...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 05:58, Steve Singer ssin...@ca.afilias.info wrote:
The attached version of the patch gets your regression tests to pass.
I'm going to mark this as ready for a committer.
I think we need
2010/11/28 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
I'm not totally convinced that this is the correct behavior. It seems
a bit surprising that UPDATE privilege on a single column is enough to
lock out all SELECT activity from the table. It's actually a bit
surprising that even full-table UPDATE
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Yourfriend doudou...@gmail.com wrote:
In our company, we use both PostgreSQL and MySQL, our developers include me
think that the INSERT ... ON DUPLICATE UPDATE clause is a much more user
friendly function,so, would you please add this liked function in
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks. I found the typo:
I only have one? :-)
Thanks, fixed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
(2010/11/29 10:43), Robert Haas wrote:
2010/11/28 KaiGai Koheikai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
I'm not totally convinced that this is the correct behavior. It seems
a bit surprising that UPDATE privilege on a single column is enough to
lock out all SELECT activity from the table. It's actually a bit
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Yeah, very true. What's a bit frustrating about the whole thing is
that we spend a lot of time pulling data into the caches that's
basically static and never likely to change anywhere, ever.
True. I wonder if we could do something like the relcache
I have a hot_standby system and use it to bear the load of various reporting
queries that take 15-60 minutes each. In an effort to avoid long pauses in
recovery, I set a vacuum_defer_cleanup_age constituting roughly three hours of
the master's transactions. Even so, I kept seeing recovery pause
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 06:24, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Thanks for your review. Please find attached a revised patch where I've
changed the internals of the function so that it's split in two and that
the opr_sanity check passes, per comments from David Wheeler and Tom
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 08:40:08PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Itagaki Takahiro
itagaki.takah...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 05:58, Steve Singer ssin...@ca.afilias.info wrote:
The attached version of the patch gets your regression tests to
pass.
59 matches
Mail list logo
