Hello
2011/3/28 David Fetter :
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 03:21:18PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> Is there some simple possibility to check a rights from stored procedure?
>
> Well, there's the catalog lookup method:
>
> SELECT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM pg_catalog.pg_roles WHERE rolname=$
Le 26/03/2011 02:43, Tomas Vondra a écrit :
> Dne 26.3.2011 02:05, Joshua Berkus napsal(a):
>> Tomas,
>>
>>> I spoke to a teacher from a local university last week, mainly as we
>>> were looking for a place where a local PUG could meet regularly. I
>>> realized this could be a good opportunity to h
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 5:31 AM, hubert depesz lubaczewski
wrote:
> I can also setup streaming slave, and it also works, but when I create
> trigger file to promote this slave to master it fails with error:
> 2011-03-24 21:01:58.051 CET @ 9680 LOG: trigger file found:
> /home/depesz/slave2/fini
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Yeah, I had a private TODO about that. I'd like to see if we can
>>> refactor the grammar to eliminate some of the duplication there
>>> as well as the potential for
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I had a private TODO about that. I'd like to see if we can
>> refactor the grammar to eliminate some of the duplication there
>> as well as the potential for oversights of this sort. I believe
>> that USER MAPPINGs
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
>> wrote:
>>> While working on adding support for SQL/Med objects to pgAdmin, I'm
>>> quite surprised to see there is no way to add comments to SQL/Med
>>> objects. Is th
Greg Stark writes:
> I like all of:
> 1) move the truncating to a new transaction just like we currently do
> toast tables in a separate transaction from the main vacuum.
+1 if we are going to continue the behavior of allowing other
transactions to kick autovac off the exclusive lock. However,
David Fetter writes:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 04:51:13PM +, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Fix plpgsql to release SPI plans when a function or DO block is freed.
> Do the other PLs we ship need similar fixes?
Offhand I think the other PLs leave management of prepared plans to the
user. If there are an
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
>> Since we are talking about stable releases, I think just releasing and
>> reacquiring the exclusive lock is enough. We can then try to further improve
>> things for future releases.
> That seems unsafe - things can change
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 3/27/2011 6:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
>>>
>>> Since we are talking about stable releases, I think just releasing and
>>> reacquiring the exclusive lock is enough. We can then try to fu
On 3/27/2011 6:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
Since we are talking about stable releases, I think just releasing and
reacquiring the exclusive lock is enough. We can then try to further improve
things for future releases.
That seems unsafe - thi
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Susanne Ebrecht
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> During translating the docs I found the following sentence
> in the tutorial section about createdb:
>
> "Database names must have an alphabetic first character
> and are limited to 63 characters"
>
> I wondered - really characte
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Are the master and standby on same system or are they separated by a network?
>
> I'm surprised that a network roundtrip takes less time than the
> backend takes to mark clog and then queue for the SyncRepLock.
When I first noticed that it was
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I was hoping to fine tune/tweak Sync Rep after feedback during beta,
> but my understanding of current consensus is that that will be too
> late to make user visible changes. So I'm proposing this change now,
> before Beta, rather than during
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I was hoping to fine tune/tweak Sync Rep after feedback during beta,
> but my understanding of current consensus is that that will be too
> late to make user visible changes. So I'm proposing this change now,
> before Beta, rather than during B
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Since we are talking about stable releases, I think just releasing and
> reacquiring the exclusive lock is enough. We can then try to further improve
> things for future releases.
That seems unsafe - things can change under you while you don't h
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
>
> Since we are talking about stable releases, I think just releasing and
> reacquiring the exclusive lock is enough. We can then try to further improve
> things for future releases.
I like all of:
1) move the truncating to a new transaction jus
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 03:21:18PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello
>
> Is there some simple possibility to check a rights from stored procedure?
Well, there's the catalog lookup method:
SELECT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM pg_catalog.pg_roles WHERE rolname=$1 AND rolsuper)
Is that what you had in m
Proposed changes: Make synchronous_replication into an enum, so we
can now also say synchronous_replication = recv, flush or apply as
well as on or off.
synchronous_replication = on is the same as "flush"
Benefit: Allows 2 additional wait modes for sync rep: wait for
receive and wait for apply.
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 03:14:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > So the result of a cast would be the collation of the specified
> > type/domain with state implicit.
>
> Hm. That makes sense for explicit CAST syntax, but what about a
> function returning a collatable type? In particular, applying t
Tom Lane writes:
> Perhaps "Use CREATE EXTENSION or CREATE LANGUAGE to load ..." ?
The only better phrasing I can think of would be to replace the or with
"then". Or… is it practical here to look at the available extensions
and choose the HINT depending on whether the given language is there or
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 04:51:13PM +, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fix plpgsql to release SPI plans when a function or DO block is freed.
Do the other PLs we ship need similar fixes?
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: david
On Mar 27, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> That doesn't mean we shouldn't do this (haven't reconsidered the whole
> thread) - but it doesn't solve the issue I originally raised.
I'm somewhat inclined to just remove this from the list of open items. It
doesn't seem clear what the actio
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 04:02, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> ISTM that the correct fix is to increment to protocol version numbe
On Mar 27, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> I just dusted off this code and brought it back to current again. Basically
> a lot of reformatting the new performance farm parts to minimize their diff.
> Once that was done, all of the other buildfarm client updates since then
> applied clea
YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> (1) Could you post the non-default configuration settings?
>
> none. it can happen with just initdb+createdb'ed database.
>
>> (2) How many connections are in use in your testing?
>
> 4.
>
>> (3) Can you give a rough categorization of how
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 04:02, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
ISTM that the correct fix is to increment to protocol version number to
3.1 and send PGRES_COPY_OUT if the client requests v
Tom Lane wrote:
> There might perhaps be some value in adding a warning like this if
> it were enabled per-table (and not enabled by default).
It only fires where a maximum has been declared and is exceeded.
Most HTABs don't declare a maximum -- they leave it at zero. These
are ignored. Whe
Robert Haas wrote:
> I don't see much advantage in changing these to asserts - in a
> debug build, that will promote ERROR to PANIC; whereas in a
> production build, they'll cause a random failure somewhere
> downstream.
The reason Assert is appropriate is that it is *impossible* to hit
that c
On 3/27/2011 1:24 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
So we should truncate in 16MB chunks also.
On a second though, fiddling with the scan direction is probably too
much of a change for back releases anyway. That 8.3/8.4 can get into a
situation, where autovacuum causes a 12 minute freeze of a production
I just dusted off this code and brought it back to current again.
Basically a lot of reformatting the new performance farm parts to
minimize their diff. Once that was done, all of the other buildfarm
client updates since then applied cleanly.
The result is now sitting as a fork of Andrew's c
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:36:43AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ** Selecting a field from a record-returning function's output.
>> Currently, we'll use the field's declared collation; except that
>> if the field has default collation, we'll replace that with the commo
You could use this in psql. Don't know how precise is it, but is enought for
initial testing.
postgres=# \timing
Timing is on.
postgres=# create index dx on diplomka using gist(data);
CREATE INDEX
Time: 236752.569 ms
> Původní zpráva
> Od: SUBHAM ROY
> Předmět: Re: [H
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>> I'm surprised that a network roundtrip takes less time than the
>> backend takes to mark clog and then queue for the SyncRepLock.
>
> I'm not surprised by that at all. Some of our replication involves
> Gb or faster
2011/3/27 Martijn van Oosterhout :
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 06:52:03PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> Syntax for named parameters should be consistent with prepared
>> statement. Is there any comments in standard?
>
> Well, there's section 4.24 which says:
>
> "In SQL-statements that are executed
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
>> That was what I meant. Go in steps of 16-64MB backwards and scan from there
>> to the current end in forward direction to find a nondeletable block. In
>> between these steps, release and reac
In these (Postgres) mailing lists, top-posting is not preferred. See my
response below.
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 1:01 PM, SUBHAM ROY wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Gurjeet Singh
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 9:22 AM, SUBHAM ROY wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I am currently a studen
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 06:52:03PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Syntax for named parameters should be consistent with prepared
> statement. Is there any comments in standard?
Well, there's section 4.24 which says:
"In SQL-statements that are executed dynamically, the parameters are
called dynami
Simon Riggs wrote:
> I'm surprised that a network roundtrip takes less time than the
> backend takes to mark clog and then queue for the SyncRepLock.
I'm not surprised by that at all. Some of our replication involves
Gb or faster connections on the same LAN segment (sometimes on the
same swit
Actually, I want to run some set of queries in postgres on a HUGE data set.
I have to compute the actual execution time for each of those queries. So
how can I do that in Postgres ?
Suppose in Oracle following thing can be done :
*
set timing on;
select stuff from mytab;
Elapsed: 00:00:02.82
*Li
2011/3/27 Andrew Dunstan :
>
>
> On 03/27/2011 09:42 AM, David Fetter wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 09:12:33PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>
>>> As I've said before, I believe that the root cause of this problem is
>>> that using the same syntax for variables and column names is a bad
>>> id
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 9:22 AM, SUBHAM ROY wrote:
> Hi,
> I am currently a student of IIT Bombay. I am doing a project on "Benchmark
> design". For that I need to measure the performance of various queries in
> databases.
> I want to know how can we measure the execution time of a query in Postg
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I just noticed that if you execute the same DO command over and over
>> within a session, it gets slower and slower. And if you keep it up
>> you'll notice the backend's RAM consumption bloating too. The cause
>> appears
Subham,
I would start with reviewing Prof Mike Stonebrakers and Dr Paula
Hawthorns paper http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=582095.582097
you can also look at Perftrack
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.101.7063&rep=rep1&type=pdf
regards
3dmashUp
On 3/27/2
On 03/27/2011 09:42 AM, David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 09:12:33PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
As I've said before, I believe that the root cause of this problem is
that using the same syntax for variables and column names is a bad
idea in the first place. If we used $foo or ?foo or
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 09:12:33PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas writes:
> >> On Mar 25, 2011, at 7:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Well, maybe, but it's not like it's subtle or hard to fix.
> >
> >> Depends how much of it you have. I'v
Hi,
I am currently a student of IIT Bombay. I am doing a project on "Benchmark
design". For that I need to measure the performance of various queries in
databases.
I want to know how can we measure the execution time of a query in Postgres
(Explain analyze will not do). Also is there any tools avai
Hello
Is there some simple possibility to check a rights from stored procedure?
Regards
Pavel Stehule
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Mar 26, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
> That was what I meant. Go in steps of 16-64MB backwards and scan from there
> to the current end in forward direction to find a nondeletable block. In
> between these steps, release and reacquire the exclusive lock so that client
> transactions ca
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 3/26/2011 12:12 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
>>
>>> My current idea for a fix is to modify lazy_truncate_heap(). It does
>>> acquire
>>> and release the exclusive lock, so it should be possi
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Is it? Sync rep requires fsync on the standby. If you then explicitly
>> turn off fsync on the standby then it has a performance impact, as
>> documented.
>
> Actually, it doesn't, now th
On Mar 27, 2011, at 12:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm ... the core languages would now prefer CREATE EXTENSION, but it's
> not clear how fast non-core PLs will follow suit.
>
> Perhaps "Use CREATE EXTENSION or CREATE LANGUAGE to load ..." ?
Dear me. If we don't know what's right, how will anyone el
On Mar 27, 2011, at 6:11 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> That syntax is sufficiently unwieldly that few people will want to use
>> it in real life, but certainly the backward compatibility problem is
>> much less than with what Tom proposed.
>
> Well, we would still support
Hello,
During translating the docs I found the following sentence
in the tutorial section about createdb:
"Database names must have an alphabetic first character
and are limited to 63 characters"
I wondered - really characters? shouldn't it be bytes?
I just tested - creating a database by usin
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
> wrote:
>> I think the best choice is to only accept qualified parameter names in
>> SQL functions (function_name.parameter_name). If a referenced table
>> share the function's name, ERROR out and HINT to alias the table n
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> ISTM that the correct fix is to increment to protocol version number to
>>> 3.1 and send PGRES_COPY_OUT if the client requests version 3.0. That's
>>> what the version numbers are for
56 matches
Mail list logo
