On Feb 23, 2011, at 2:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
2011/2/22 PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig postg...@cybertec.at:
how does it work? we try to find suitable statistics for an arbitrary length
list of conditions so that the planner can use it directly rather than
multiplying all the
Those are real problems, but I still want it. The last time I hit
this problem I spent two days redesigning my schema and adding
triggers all over the place to make things work. If I had been
dealing with a 30TB database instead of a 300MB database I would have
been royally up a creek.
Reading documents coming with Simon's patches, I'm a little bit
confused by the idea of synchronous standbys.
In the sgmls doc, The commit wait will last until the first reply
from any standby. Multiple standby servers allow increased
availability and possibly increase performance as well.
So in
In 9.1, we will be able to have synchrnous replication. Also we have
one standby server chosen by primary to be the synchronous standby
(still I'm not sure this is correct or not as stated in another mail).
Is there anyway to know which is the synchronous standby? IMO this is
important for users
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:20:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
It'd be more future-proof than this patch, but I'm still
unconvinced
about the use-case.
Do we want to intentionally make binary
On 22/02/11 22:48, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Committed this, with two changes: Changed some things around with the
way const char * is propagated. Just casting it away is not nice. Also
dropped the error tests in the _quote.sql regression test. This
generates three different wordings of
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:33:25 -0500
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Is anyone actually working on a new version of this patch sufficiently
rapidly that we can expect a new version in the next day or two?
If not, I think we mark this one Returned with Feedback and revisit it for
Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message of mar feb 22 20:29:26 -0300 2011:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Have you performance tested it? Scanning pg_index for index
columns for each row strikes me as likely to be unpleasant.
I haven't, yet. I had rather assumed that the
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Nathan Boley npbo...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I think the first thing we ought to do is add a real, bona
fide planner hint to override the selectivity calculation manually,
maybe something like this:
WHERE (x 5 AND y = 1) SELECTIVITY (0.1);
If you're
2011/2/23 PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig postg...@cybertec.at:
Those are real problems, but I still want it. The last time I hit
this problem I spent two days redesigning my schema and adding
triggers all over the place to make things work. If I had been
dealing with a 30TB database
cheapest and easiest solution if you run into this: add fake functions
which the planner cannot estimate properly.
use OR to artificially prop up estimates or use AND to artificially lower
them. there is actually no need to redesign the schema to get around it but
it is such an ugly
On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Nathan Boley npbo...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I think the first thing we ought to do is add a real, bona
fide planner hint to override the selectivity calculation manually,
maybe something like this:
WIP patch of statistics collection for arrays is attached. It generally
copies statistics collection for tsvector, but there are following
differencies:
1) Default comparison, hash and equality function for element data type is
used (from corresponding default operator classes).
2) Operators @ and
On 23 February 2011 04:36, Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu wrote:
This is only true for server encodings. In a client library I think
you lose on this and do have to deal with it. I'm not sure what client
encodings we do support that aren't ascii-supersets though, it's
possible none of them
2011/2/23 PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig postg...@cybertec.at:
i thought there was an agreement that we don't want planner hints?
Well, I want them. I think some other people do, too. Whether those
people are more numerous than than the people who don't want them, and
how much that matters
On 02/23/2011 10:09 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 23 February 2011 04:36, Greg Starkgsst...@mit.edu wrote:
This is only true for server encodings. In a client library I think
you lose on this and do have to deal with it. I'm not sure what client
encodings we do support that aren't
rsmogura rsmog...@softperience.eu writes:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:20:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
... But my question isn't about that; it's about
why aclitem should be considered a first-class citizen. It makes me
uncomfortable that client apps are looking at it at all, because any
that do
On 23.02.2011 17:16, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/23/2011 10:09 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 23 February 2011 04:36, Greg Starkgsst...@mit.edu wrote:
This is only true for server encodings. In a client library I think
you lose on this and do have to deal with it. I'm not sure what client
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 02/23/2011 10:09 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 23 February 2011 04:36, Greg Starkgsst...@mit.edu wrote:
This is only true for server encodings. In a client library I think
you lose on this and do have to deal with
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
On 23.02.2011 17:16, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/23/2011 10:09 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I'm pretty sure all of the client encodings Tatsuo mentions are ASCII
supersets.
They are not. It's precisely because they are not that
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Peter Geoghegan
peter.geoghega...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm investigating the possibility of developing a utility function for
our C++ client library, libpqxx, that produces array literals that can
be used in prepared statements. This problem appears to be a bit of
On 02/23/2011 10:22 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 23.02.2011 17:16, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/23/2011 10:09 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 23 February 2011 04:36, Greg Starkgsst...@mit.edu wrote:
This is only true for server encodings. In a client library I think
you lose on this and do
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 09:34:06AM -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Peter Geoghegan
peter.geoghega...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm investigating the possibility of developing a utility function for
our C++ client library, libpqxx, that produces array literals that can
On ons, 2011-02-23 at 11:26 +0100, Jan Urbański wrote:
One thing: you removed the conditional pfree from PLy_quote_ident,
which makes this function leak memory if the actual quoting took
place, no? Is that leak too small to worry about?
Many functions in PostgreSQL leak memory in this way.
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us Wednesday 23 February 2011 16:19:27
rsmogura rsmog...@softperience.eu writes:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:20:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
... But my question isn't about that; it's about
why aclitem should be considered a first-class citizen. It makes me
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us Wednesday 23 February 2011 16:19:27
rsmogura rsmog...@softperience.eu writes:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:20:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
... But my question isn't about that; it's about
why aclitem should be considered a first-class citizen. It makes me
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:42 AM, Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org wrote:
It seems there's only one synchronous standby allowed at the same
time.
Does anybody know which one is correct?
there could be only one standby at the same time...
in the original patch there could be several
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
I think it'd be better to use RelationGetIndexList (which gets the
index list from relcache) and fetch the index tuples from
syscache; see relationHasPrimaryKey for sample code.
Thanks. Patch done that way attached. Will get it into
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org wrote:
In 9.1, we will be able to have synchrnous replication. Also we have
one standby server chosen by primary to be the synchronous standby
(still I'm not sure this is correct or not as stated in another mail).
yes, it is.
On 02/23/2011 10:40 AM, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
Can someone please point me in the direction of an established client
library/driver where all corner cases are covered, or at least enough
of them to produce a net gain in usefulness? There may well be
additional subtleties that have not
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 18.02.2011 17:02, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
Another use case of the Index Advisor is to be switched on for a few hours
while the application runs, and gather the recommendations for the whole
run.
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
The CommitFest application currently reflects 17 remaining patches for
CommitFest 2011-01.
Now we're down to 12. As usual, the last few patches take the longest...
1. Change pg_last_xlog_receive_location not to move
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié feb 23 14:54:02 -0300 2011:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
16. synchronized snapshots. Alvaro is working on this one.
Lots of discussion of this one, but current status is not clear to me.
Alvaro, are
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié feb 23 14:54:02 -0300 2011:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
16. synchronized snapshots. Alvaro is working on this one.
Lots
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us Wednesday 23 February 2011 16:19:27
rsmogura rsmog...@softperience.eu writes:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:20:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
... But my question isn't about that; it's about
why aclitem should be considered a first-class citizen. It makes me
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié feb 23 15:14:04 -0300 2011:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié feb 23 14:54:02 -0300 2011:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message of mié feb 23 13:43:19 -0300 2011:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
I think it'd be better to use RelationGetIndexList (which gets the
index list from relcache) and fetch the index tuples from
syscache; see relationHasPrimaryKey for
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié feb 23 15:14:04 -0300 2011:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié feb 23 14:54:02
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Why not use quote_identifier and quote_literal_cstr instead of
this new strcpy thing?
We've got various types of software that will be parsing these
payloads, and it's a little easier to parse if the quoting is
unconditional. If that's a
Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message of mié feb 23 16:20:16 -0300 2011:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Why not use quote_identifier and quote_literal_cstr instead of
this new strcpy thing?
We've got various types of software that will be parsing these
payloads, and
Excerpts from Radosław Smogura's message of mié feb 23 15:18:22 -0300 2011:
Btw, Is it possible and needed to add group byte, indicating that grantee is
group or user?
There are no groups or users, only roles.
--
Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com
The PostgreSQL Company - Command
Robert Haas wrote:
2. Synchronous replication. Splitting up this patch has allowed some
This has gotten a bunch of review, on several different threads. I
assume Simon will publish an update when he gets back to his
keyboard...
That was the idea. If anyone has any serious concerns
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Is this intended for 9.1?
Kevin already expressed his intention to add this to the first 9.2CF.
It's far too late to BEGIN discussing new features for 9.1.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Binary mode had serious limitations, such as portability.
What are the other limitations?
As far as portability is concerned, we are using it on many different
operating systems and architectures without issue. Even our most recent
bump to 9.0.1 and 9.0.3 was flawless in regard to
On 23 February 2011 15:34, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
You can send nested arrays safely. You just have to be very formal
about escaping *everything* both as you get it and as it goes into the
container. This is what postgres does on the backend as it sends
arrays out the door
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié feb 23 17:03:23 -0300 2011:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Is this intended for 9.1?
Kevin already expressed his intention to add this to the first 9.2CF.
It's far too late to BEGIN discussing new
Excerpts from Marko Tiikkaja's message of sáb ene 15 17:30:14 -0300 2011:
On 2010-10-21 3:32 PM +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
patch
Here's the patch rebased against the master. No code changes since the
last patch I sent.
Having a look at this.
--
Álvaro Herrera
On 2/23/2011 3:06 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 23 February 2011 15:34, Merlin Moncuremmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
You can send nested arrays safely. You just have to be very formal
about escaping *everything* both as you get it and as it goes into the
container. This is what postgres does on
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message:
No strong opinion on this, really, but your strcpy should use a
StringInfo buffer instead of the char[200]. That's going to bite
someone.
Yeah, this was thrown together in a bit of a hurry because of
On 02/23/2011 02:21 PM, Andrew Chernow wrote:
Binary mode had serious limitations, such as portability.
What are the other limitations?
As far as portability is concerned, we are using it on many different
operating systems and architectures without issue. Even our most
recent bump to
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 03:34:45PM -0500, Andrew Chernow wrote:
On 2/23/2011 3:06 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 23 February 2011 15:34, Merlin Moncuremmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
You can send nested arrays safely. You just have to be very formal
about escaping *everything* both as you get it
It's probably fine if you can control both ends. But there is no
guarantee of portability, nor does it seem likely to me there ever will
be, so I don't find your assertion terribly useful. The fact that it
hasn't broken for you doesn't mean it can't or won't be.
All true. If you change
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from RadosÅaw Smogura's message of mié feb 23 15:18:22 -0300 2011:
Btw, Is it possible and needed to add group byte, indicating that grantee is
group or user?
There are no groups or users, only roles.
Even if there were, this is
=?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?= rsmog...@softperience.eu writes:
Here is extended version, has version field (N_ACL_RIGHTS*2) and reserved
mask, as well definition is more general then def of PGSQL. In any way it
require that rights mades bit array.
You're going in quite the wrong
We've touched a few times on trying to get rid of the
sleep-awhile-and-check-for-something-to-do loops in PG's auxiliary
processes, mainly to satisfy people who complain about CPU power
consumption when idle. I can see how most of the something-to-do
checks can be reimplemented using latches, but
PostgreSQL - Hans-J?rgen Sch?nig wrote:
Those are real problems, but I still want it. The last time I hit
this problem I spent two days redesigning my schema and adding
triggers all over the place to make things work. If I had been
dealing with a 30TB database instead of a 300MB database
Robert Haas wrote:
2011/2/23 PostgreSQL - Hans-J?rgen Sch?nig postg...@cybertec.at:
i thought there was an agreement that we don't want planner hints?
Well, I want them. I think some other people do, too. Whether those
people are more numerous than than the people who don't want them, and
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Marko Tiikkaja's message of sáb ene 15 17:30:14 -0300 2011:
On 2010-10-21 3:32 PM +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
patch
Here's the patch rebased against the master. No code changes since the
last patch I sent.
Having a look
On 2011-02-24 12:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
My recollection is that this was pretty tightly coupled to the wCTE
patch.
It was, but isn't anymore. Now it's just a bugfix.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
While playing around with the BOX and POINT datatypes, I was surprised to
note that BOX @ POINT (and likewise POINT @ BOX) queries were not using
the GiST index I had created on the BOX column. The attached patch adds a
new strategy @(BOX,POINT) to the box_ops opclass. Internally,
Andrew Tipton andrew.t.tip...@gmail.com wrote:
should I add this to CF-Next?
Yes.
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Marko Tiikkaja marko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi writes:
On 2011-02-24 12:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
My recollection is that this was pretty tightly coupled to the wCTE
patch.
It was, but isn't anymore. Now it's just a bugfix.
The connection is the question of where to do CommandCounterIncrement
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié feb 23 19:39:23 -0300 2011:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Marko Tiikkaja's message of sáb ene 15 17:30:14 -0300 2011:
On 2010-10-21 3:32 PM +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
patch
Here's the patch rebased against the
On 2011-02-24 2:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Marko Tiikkajamarko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi writes:
On 2011-02-24 12:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
My recollection is that this was pretty tightly coupled to the wCTE
patch.
It was, but isn't anymore. Now it's just a bugfix.
The connection is the question
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié feb 23 19:39:23 -0300 2011:
My recollection is that this was pretty tightly coupled to the wCTE
patch. I had been intending to review them together, and have just
now come up for air enough to start
On 2011-02-24 2:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
There was some restructuring in code in postgres.c to be
done near this patch, which wasn't attacked at all by Marko AFAICS.
Maybe I should be looking at that instead.
I don't feel at all comfortable doing the restructuring you guys have
been
Personally, I think the first thing we ought to do is add a real, bona
fide planner hint to override the selectivity calculation manually,
maybe something like this:
WHERE (x 5 AND y = 1) SELECTIVITY (0.1);
Then, having provided a method for the DBA to extinguish the raging
flames of
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org wrote:
In 9.1, we will be able to have synchrnous replication. Also we have
one standby server chosen by primary to be the synchronous standby
(still I'm not sure this is correct or not as stated in another mail).
yes, it
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Personally, I think the first thing we ought to do is add a real, bona
fide planner hint to override the selectivity calculation manually,
maybe something like this:
WHERE (x 5 AND y = 1) SELECTIVITY (0.1);
Then, having
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
IOW, at least on Linux, you *can* arrange to get a signal when your
parent process dies.
That's pretty cool.
Not sure how ugly it'd be to use this call when available and a time
delay when not, but it's something to think
there could be only one standby at the same time...
in the original patch there could be several synchronous standby
servers and the primary was going to wait until the first one of them
to answer, but that was removed and replaced by a list of possible
synch standby servers and the first
Robert Haas wrote:
If you want to take the above as in any way an exhaustive survey of
the landscape (which it isn't), C seems like a standout, maybe
augmented by the making the planner able to notice that A1 = x1 AND A2
= x2 is equivalent to (A1,A2) = (x1, x2) so you don't have to rewrite
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
If you want to take the above as in any way an exhaustive survey of
the landscape (which it isn't), C seems like a standout, maybe
augmented by the making the planner able to notice that A1 = x1 AND A2
On Feb 24, 2011, at 2:09 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Personally, I think the first thing we ought to do is add a real, bona
fide planner hint to override the selectivity calculation manually,
maybe something like this:
WHERE (x 5 AND y = 1) SELECTIVITY (0.1);
Then, having provided a method
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:06 PM, 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.
I've been messing with this patch and
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:06 PM, 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.
76 matches
Mail list logo
