hi,
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
This is related to the SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock
thread, but seemed different enough to merit spinning off a new
thread.
Our shop hasn't used large objects so far because of the lack of
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 00:21, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 05:39, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wouldn't have a problem with making the Windows port throw an error
for local lines. We'd have to fix initdb to
Tom Lane wrote:
You missed one return where the string needed to be freed. I've
applied this patch with that fix and a couple of cosmetic changes.
Thanks for the report and patch!
Thanks for the work and the keen eye!
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 6:05 AM, Martin Belleau
martin.bell...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
First, sorry - I really didn't know to which list to post this.
I'm looking to either write or get access to something like the EnterpriseDB
installer for windows, which doesn't seem to be kept up to date
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
Anyway, I think the intro message should be Don't submit a big patch to
PostgreSQL until you've done a small patch and some patch review
instead though.
Well, my first patch was two-phase commit. And I had never even used
Attached is a patch that builds upon Florian Pflug's earlier proof of
concept program for monitoring the postmaster. The code creates a
non-blocking pipe in the postmaster that child processes block on
using a select() call. This all occurs in the latch code, which now
monitors postmaster death,
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Attached is a patch that builds upon Florian Pflug's earlier proof of
concept program for monitoring the postmaster. The code creates a
non-blocking pipe in the postmaster that child processes block on
using a
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, people often come into our community with incorrect
assumptions about how it works, including:
- someone's in charge
- there's one right answer
- it's
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
BTW, I thought a bit more about why I didn't like the initial proposal
in this thread, and the basic objection is this: the AccessShareLock or
RowExclusiveLock we take on the catalog is not meant to provide any
serialization
Is this a TODO? I don't see it on the TODO list.
---
Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
BTW, I thought a bit more about why I didn't like the initial proposal
in
From: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
I wish the fix will be back-patched in 8.3, too.
I guess the question is whether this is a bug which causes more
problems than the potential breakage which might ensue for
Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Attached is a patch that builds upon Florian Pflug's earlier proof of
concept program for monitoring the postmaster.
Cool. Like Robert, no time to review this in detail now, but ...
How should I be handling the EXEC_BACKEND case?
Assuming that
MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
I think Tom had the right idea upthread: what we should do is
make the -s option to pg_ctl suppress these messages (as it
does with similar messages on Linux). Removing them altogether
seems like overkill, for the
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm not that thrilled with the life sign terminology, but don't
have a better idea right offhand.
Yeah, that made no sense to me. Can't we just refer to detecting
postmaster death?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB:
On 13 May 2011 16:18, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm not that thrilled with the life sign terminology, but don't
have a better idea right offhand.
Yeah, that made no sense to me. Can't we just refer to
Robert Haas wrote:
Kevin Grittner wrote:
Anyway, I could clean up all but that last issue in the old code.
I'm not sure whether that makes sense if you're refactoring it
anyway. Would you like me to look at the refactored code to
suggest fixes? Would you rather do it yourself based on my
Sorry i don't know about AFAICS.
Yes, i want to modify cube code for this i want to go in detail by
debugging.
Can you throw some light on how to debug contrib/cube code?
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira eu...@timbira.com
wrote:
Em 06-05-2011 02:14, Nick Raj escreveu:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On ons, 2011-05-11 at 16:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Hm, do you know how to enumerate the available locales on Windows?
EnumSystemLocalesEx()
Reference:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd317829(v=vs.85).aspx
Example:
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Nick Raj nickrajj...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry i don't know about AFAICS.
Yes, i want to modify cube code for this i want to go in detail by
debugging.
Can you throw some light on how to debug contrib/cube code?
AFAICS is short for as far as I can see.
On my
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Nick Raj nickrajj...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you throw some light on how to debug contrib/cube code?
On my system, if I configure --enable-debug, the contrib modules are
compiled with debug support as well.
Depending on
what's changed:
*) as advertised, i'm no longer bothering to cache invalid bits. hint
bit i/o via rollbacked transactions is not a big deal IMNSHO, so they
will work as they have always done.
*) all the tuple visibility routines are now participating in the cache
*) xmax commit bits are now being
2011/5/11 Shigeru Hanada han...@metrosystems.co.jp:
(2011/04/26 5:42), Robert Haas wrote:
OK. Turned out a little more cleanup was needed to make this all the
way consistent with how we handle views; I have now done that.
I noticed that some fixes would be needed for consistency about
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 09:07:34AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Actually, it's occurred to me from time to time that it would be nice
to eliminate ACCESS SHARE (and while I'm dreaming, maybe ROW SHARE and
ROW EXCLUSIVE) locks for tables as well. Under normal operating
conditions (i.e. no DDL
I am listing the query, it's explain output and explain analyze output at
the end.
The EXPLAIN output shows the 'Subplan 2' node only once, whereas EXPLAIN
ANALYZE output shows that the 'Subplan 2' is being executed twice . Is that
true? Or is it just the plan printer getting confused? Is the
On May 9, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
2) Our process for reviewing and approving patches, and what criteria
such patches are required to meet, is *very* opaque to a first-time
submitter (as in no documentation the submitter knows about), and does
not become clearer as they go
On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 23:06:21 +0100, Brar Piening b...@gmx.de wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 21:26:22 +0100, Magnus Hagander
mag...@hagander.net wrote:
it's not something we should hold up the CF / release for.
I agree.
At least it should get some more testing besides mine.
[...]
Being somewhat
Kevin Barnard kevinbarn...@mac.com wrote:
A ticketing system with work flow could help with transparency.
If it's setup correctly the work flow could help document where
the item is in the review process. As another idea maybe have a
status to indicate that the patch has been reviewed for
Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com writes:
I am listing the query, it's explain output and explain analyze output at
the end.
The EXPLAIN output shows the 'Subplan 2' node only once, whereas EXPLAIN
ANALYZE output shows that the 'Subplan 2' is being executed twice . Is that
true? Or is it
2011/5/11 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Completely agree, but why are you saying that to me?
When Tom asks me why I suggest something, nobody tells him its a free
software project etc
What is the difference
Hi,
On Apr 14, 2011, at 9:50 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Alexey Klyukin al...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
Here's the update of Selena's patch, which also shows all errors in
configuration parameters (as well as parser errors) during reload.
You should add this
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com writes:
I am listing the query, it's explain output and explain analyze output at
the end.
The EXPLAIN output shows the 'Subplan 2' node only once, whereas EXPLAIN
ANALYZE output
On May 13, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Alexey Klyukin wrote:
On May 13, 2011, at 1:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
We're not likely to do that, first because it's randomly different from
the handling of every other system catalog update, and second because it
would serialize all updates on this catalog,
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 19:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
It should be okay to move, since the -devel subpackage requires the
main one. Therefore there is no configuration in which pg_config
would be present before and missing after the change.
Thanks Tom. I can make this change in next build
Bruce Momjian wrote:
? ? ? Performing Consistency Checks
? ? ? -
? ? ? ignoring libpq environment variable PGPORT
I haven't tried it, but I suppose option.c will now make use of PGPORT
and then later you get that message that it was ignored?
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
The key is putting a rapid hard stop to all fast-path lock acquisitions and
then reconstructing a valid global picture of the affected lock table regions.
Your 1024-way table of strong lock counts sounds promising. (Offhand,
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Cédric Villemain
cedric.villemain.deb...@gmail.com wrote:
Will you be able to do some ? or can you propose a simple process to
do efficient benchmark of the patch ?
I will probably do some benchmarking at some point, unless someone
else goes nuts and makes it
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Brar Piening b...@gmx.de wrote:
After some months of being able to regularly compile current head using
Visual Studio 2010 compilers and some more tests I no longer see any reason
why this patch would change without external feedback.
You probably want to add
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wrote:
I think the appropriate fix is pretty clear: add a function similar to
exec_get_datum_type that returns the datum's typmod, and use that to set
paramtypmod properly. What is worrying me is that it's not clear how
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 08:55:34PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
If I'm understanding correctly, your pseudocode would look roughly like
this:
? ? ? ?if (level = ShareUpdateExclusiveLock)
I think ShareUpdateExclusiveLock
On Fri, 13 May 2011 21:52:47 -0400, Robert Haas
robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
You probably want to add it here, then:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open
I's been in the last commitfest and i've recently moved it to the
current one already.
See
40 matches
Mail list logo
