On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Well, good news all round.
v17 implements what I believe to be the final set of features for sync
rep. This one I'm actually fairly happy with. It can be enjoyed best at
DEBUG3.
The patch is very lite touch on a few
Well, good news all round.
v17 implements what I believe to be the final set of features for sync
rep. This one I'm actually fairly happy with. It can be enjoyed best at
DEBUG3.
The patch is very lite touch on a few areas of code, plus a chunk of
specific code, all on master-side. Pretty
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
I needed something to test the FDW API patch with, and didn't want to
get involved in the COPY API changes, and also wanted to have something
that needs real connection management and can push down quals. So I
updated the
A couple more questions:
What's the reason for this restriction?
if (databaseId != MyDatabaseId)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
errmsg(cannot import snapshot from a different
database)));
Why are
On 02/19/2011 11:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
However, it occurs to me that as long as we're passing the function the
ExplainState, it has what it needs to add arbitrary EXPLAIN result
fields. Although it could do this the hard way, we could make it a lot
easier by exporting the
Is this right?
postgres=# \d+ agg_text
Foreign table public.agg_text
Column | Type | Modifiers | Storage | Description
+--+---+--+-
a | smallint | | plain|
b | text | | extended |
Server:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 02/19/2011 11:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
However, it occurs to me that as long as we're passing the function the
ExplainState, it has what it needs to add arbitrary EXPLAIN result
fields.
If we allow the invention of new explain states we'll never be
On 02/21/2011 11:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net writes:
On 02/19/2011 11:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
However, it occurs to me that as long as we're passing the function the
ExplainState, it has what it needs to add arbitrary EXPLAIN result
fields.
If we allow the
On 02/21/2011 11:38 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/21/2011 11:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net writes:
If we allow the invention of new explain states we'll never be able to
publish an authoritative schema definition of the data. That's not
necessarily an argument
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of lun feb 21 13:11:25 -0300 2011:
If we allow the invention of new explain states we'll never be able to
publish an authoritative schema definition of the data. That's not
necessarily an argument
On 02/21/2011 11:45 AM, Mark Mielke wrote:
On 02/21/2011 11:38 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/21/2011 11:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net writes:
If we allow the invention of new explain states we'll never be able to
publish an authoritative schema definition of
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Regarding your other suggestion, the whole point I have been making is
that if external modules can invent arbitrary nodes then we can't
publish an XSD (or RelaxNG or DTD) spec that is worth anything at all.
Well, sure we can. But if you're using
On 02/21/2011 12:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net writes:
Regarding your other suggestion, the whole point I have been making is
that if external modules can invent arbitrary nodes then we can't
publish an XSD (or RelaxNG or DTD) spec that is worth anything at all.
Excerpts from Joachim Wieland's message of dom ene 30 14:36:12 -0300 2011:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Is it valid to scribble directly on snapshots like this?
I figured that previously executed code still has references pointing
to the snapshots
On Feb 21, 2011, at 9:12 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
my $parser= XML::DOM::Parser-new();
my $xp = $parser-parsefile($xmlfile);
my ($provider) = $xp-findvalue(//SERVICE_PROVIDER_CODE);
my ($invoice_num) = $xp-findvalue(//invoice_num);
Not that hard, is it? No regex matching there. :-)
On Feb 21, 2011, at 10:07 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
See also
https://github.com/theory/explain-table
Oops, sorry, make that
https://github.com/pgexperts/explain-table
Best,
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
What's the reason for this restriction?
if (databaseId != MyDatabaseId)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
On Feb 21, 2011, at 10:11 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
Oops, sorry, make that
https://github.com/pgexperts/explain-table
And now I've renamed it (sorry) and released it on PGXN. New links:
https://github.com/pgexperts/explanation
http://master.pgxn.org/dist/explanation/
Best,
David
Joachim Wieland j...@mcknight.de writes:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Why are we using bytea as the output format instead of text?
It is bytea because it should be thought of just some data. It
should be regarded more as a token than as
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I think we need a safety net so that the new serializable isolation
code doesn't get upset if we change the base snapshot from under
it, but I haven't looked at that yet.
Replacing the snapshot for a serializable transaction after it has
acquired its initial snapshot
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org wrote:
Well, good news all round.
Hello on this thread,
I'm taking a look at replication timeout with non-blocking which would
be nice but not required for this patch, in my understanding. But
before that, we're going to put
The API for FDW validators doesn't appear to have any way that the
validator function can check that the defined foreign table shape
matches the FDW options sanely. Maybe it's a chicken and egg problem,
but there seems to be something missing, unless I'm mistaken. We'll have
the info when we
Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message of lun feb 21 18:39:26 -0300 2011:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I think we need a safety net so that the new serializable isolation
code doesn't get upset if we change the base snapshot from under
it, but I haven't looked at that yet.
Replacing the
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
The API for FDW validators doesn't appear to have any way that the
validator function can check that the defined foreign table shape
matches the FDW options sanely.
Huh? The options ought to be orthogonal to the table column info.
If they're not,
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Actually this seems rather difficult to do, because in order to invoke
the function that imports the snapshot, you have to call SELECT, which
acquires a snapshot beforehand. So when we actually import the
passed-in snapshot, there's already a
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun feb 21 21:00:19 -0300 2011:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Actually this seems rather difficult to do, because in order to invoke
the function that imports the snapshot, you have to call SELECT, which
acquires a snapshot beforehand.
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
That's true too. So let's discuss the syntax. Maybe
START TRANSACTION SNAPSHOT '\xdeadbeef';
This kind of extension seems ugly though; maybe we should consider
START TRANSACTION (snapshot='\xdeadbeef');
(like VACUUM, EXPLAIN and
On 02/21/2011 06:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net writes:
The API for FDW validators doesn't appear to have any way that the
validator function can check that the defined foreign table shape
matches the FDW options sanely.
Huh? The options ought to be orthogonal to
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:12, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
The API for FDW validators doesn't appear to have any way that the
validator function can check that the defined foreign table shape
matches the FDW options sanely.
Huh? The options ought to be orthogonal to the table
Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
While working on some database maintenance, I was just tripped up by the
fact that there is no good way to query reloptions for tables. ?By no good
way I mean no way which does not involve UNNEST
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
I propose that we add the following test for this case:
AC_CHECK_HEADER(Python.h, [], [AC_MSG_ERROR([header file Python.h
is required for Python])])
You'd need to pay attention to python_includespec, but otherwise seems
On 02/21/2011 09:33 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net writes:
I propose that we add the following test for this case:
AC_CHECK_HEADER(Python.h, [], [AC_MSG_ERROR([header filePython.h
is required for Python])])
You'd need to pay attention
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:42:36PM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
i tested ede45e90dd1992bfd3e1e61ce87bad494b81f54d + ssi-multi-update-1.patch
with my application and got the following assertion failure.
#4 0x0827977e in CheckTargetForConflictsIn (targettag=0xbfbfce78)
at
psql \d(+) doesn't show any information about UNLOGGED and TEMP attributes
for the table. So, we cannot know the table is unlogged or not unless
we directly select from pg_class.relpersistence. Is this a TODO item?
The same issue is in TEMP tables, but we can determine them by their
schema; they
On 02/21/2011 08:59 PM, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
I think we need to overhaul validators in 9.2 listening to FDW developers'
opinions anyway. The text array is an example, but there should be many
other requirements. Personally, I'd like to have a method to list available
options from SQL. We
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 02/21/2011 06:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Huh? The options ought to be orthogonal to the table column info.
If they're not, maybe you need to rethink your option definitions.
Well, let's take a couple of cases.
1. My old favorite, file as a text
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 02/21/2011 08:59 PM, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
I think we need to overhaul validators in 9.2 listening to FDW developers'
opinions anyway.
Ok, I guess. It just seems to me like it will be harder to extend the
API later than now, so if we can
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
I'm taking a look at replication timeout with non-blocking which would
be nice but not required for this patch, in my understanding.
Why do you think so? You think sync_replication_timeout_client is sufficient
for sync rep?
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
I've read about a tenth of the patch, so I'll submit another comments
about the rest later.
Here are another comments:
SyncRepReleaseWaiters should be called when walsender exits. Otherwise,
if the standby crashes while
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org wrote:
+ primaryvarnamesynchronous_standby_names/ configuration
parameter/primary
+ /indexterm
+ listitem
+ para
+ Specifies a list of standby names that can become the sole
+ synchronous
2011/2/22 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 02/21/2011 08:59 PM, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
I think we need to overhaul validators in 9.2 listening to FDW developers'
opinions anyway.
Ok, I guess. It just seems to me like it will be harder to extend the
On 19.02.2011 02:41, Joachim Wieland wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
1. why are you using the expansible char array stuff instead of using
the StringInfo facility?
2. is md5 the most appropriate digest for this? If you need a
On 21.02.2011 21:33, Joachim Wieland wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
What's the reason for this restriction?
if (databaseId != MyDatabaseId)
ereport(ERROR,
43 matches
Mail list logo
