Re: [HACKERS] Crash dumps

2011-07-07 Thread Radosław Smogura
Craig Ringer cr...@postnewspapers.com.au Thursday 07 of July 2011 01:05:48 On 6/07/2011 11:00 PM, Radosław Smogura wrote: I think IPC for fast shout down all backends and wait for report processing is quite enaugh. How do you propose to make that reliable, though? -- Craig Ringer

[HACKERS] dropping table in testcase alter_table.sql

2011-07-07 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
Hi, I noticed that the test alter_table.sql is creating two tables tab1 and tab2 and it's not dropping it. Any test which follows this test and tries to create tables with names tab1 and tab2 will fail (unless it drops those tables first, but that may not work, since tab2.y depends upon tab1 in

[HACKERS] Expression Pruning in postgress

2011-07-07 Thread HarmeekSingh Bedi
Hi . Apology for the bandwith. Did not know who to ask the question . I was interested in a brief detail on how postgress does expression pruning between nodes . The basic question is as follows Scenerio In a plan where Node 1 is parent {say join) and Node 2 is child (say scan) . If node

Re: [HACKERS] patch: enhanced get diagnostics statement 2

2011-07-07 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello thank you very much for review. I cleaned patch and merged your documentation patch I hope, this is all - a language correction should do some native speaker Regards Pavel Stehule 2011/7/6 Shigeru Hanada shigeru.han...@gmail.com: (2011/06/02 17:39), Pavel Stehule wrote: This patch

Re: [HACKERS] spinlock contention

2011-07-07 Thread Florian Pflug
On Jul7, 2011, at 03:35 , Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote: On Jun12, 2011, at 23:39 , Robert Haas wrote: So, the majority (60%) of the excess spinning appears to be

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Fast GiST index build

2011-07-07 Thread Alexander Korotkov
New version of patch with readme and some bugfixes. Some new tests with fast build parameters variations are on the wiki page. While I doubt to interpret some results of tests, because it looks strange for me. I particular I can't explain why decrease of buffer size affects index quality so much

Re: [HACKERS] Moving the community git server

2011-07-07 Thread Magnus Hagander
This move should now be completed. If you see any errors still - other than the change of SSH key - please validate that you have the new IP address (204.145.120.222) - it could be excessive DNS caching. If you have verified both the SSH key and the IP address and still see problems, please let

Re: [HACKERS] Crash dumps

2011-07-07 Thread Tom Lane
=?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?= rsmog...@softperience.eu writes: Craig Ringer cr...@postnewspapers.com.au Thursday 07 of July 2011 01:05:48 How do you propose to make that reliable, though? I want to add IPC layer to postgresql, few approches may be considerable, 1. System IPC 2. Urgent

Re: [HACKERS] Expression Pruning in postgress

2011-07-07 Thread Tom Lane
HarmeekSingh Bedi harmeeksi...@gmail.com writes: In a plan where Node 1 is parent {say join) and Node 2 is child (say scan) . If node 1 has a expression say foo(column) then scan will project 'column' for sure and join will evaluate foo(column). Now if the node above join does not

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

2011-07-07 Thread Craig Ringer
On 7/07/2011 8:26 AM, Brar Piening wrote: As before perltidy_before.patch has to be applied first and VS2010v9.patch second. OK, I've gone through builds with way too many versions of the Windows SDK and have test results to report. The short version: please commit so I never, ever, ever

Re: [HACKERS] [v9.2] Fix leaky-view problem, part 1

2011-07-07 Thread Kohei KaiGai
2011/7/7 Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com: On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:25:12PM +0200, Kohei KaiGai wrote: *** a/src/backend/commands/view.c --- b/src/backend/commands/view.c --- 227,257                               atcmd-def = (Node *) lfirst(c);                               atcmds =

Re: [HACKERS] Moving the community git server

2011-07-07 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: This move should now be completed. Something weird seems to have happened to the gitweb service at the same time, which broke some of my bookmarks. On investigation, I think it's gotten pickier about the local-part of the URLs. For example

Re: [HACKERS] SSI 2PC coverage

2011-07-07 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 05.07.2011 20:06, Kevin Grittner wrote: [resending after gzip of test patch] In reviewing the recent fix to 2PC coverage in SSI, I found some cases which didn't seem to be covered. Dan bit the bullet and came up with an additional isolation test to rigorously cover all the permutations, to

Re: [HACKERS] Moving the community git server

2011-07-07 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 17:09, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: This move should now be completed. Something weird seems to have happened to the gitweb service at the same time, which broke some of my bookmarks.  On investigation, I think it's

Re: [HACKERS] Make relation_openrv atomic wrt DDL

2011-07-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Attached.  I made the counter 64 bits wide, handled the nothing-found case per your idea, and improved a few comments cosmetically.  I have not attempted to improve the search_path interposition case.  We can recommend the

Re: [HACKERS] SSI 2PC coverage

2011-07-07 Thread Kevin Grittner
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: On 05.07.2011 20:06, Kevin Grittner wrote: In reviewing the recent fix to 2PC coverage in SSI, I found some cases which didn't seem to be covered. Dan bit the bullet and came up with an additional isolation test to rigorously

Re: [HACKERS] SSI atomic commit

2011-07-07 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 05.07.2011 20:03, Kevin Grittner wrote: In reviewing the 2PC changes mentioned in a separate post, both Dan and I realized that these were dependent on the assumption that SSI's commitSeqNo is assigned in the order in which the transactions became visible. This comment in the patch actually

Re: [HACKERS] spinlock contention

2011-07-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote: In effect, the resulting thing is an LWLock with a partitioned shared counter. The partition one backend operates on for shared locks is determined by its backend id. I've added the implementation to the lock benchmarking tool

Re: [HACKERS] dropping table in testcase alter_table.sql

2011-07-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:05 AM, Ashutosh Bapat ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I noticed that the test alter_table.sql is creating two tables tab1 and tab2 and it's not dropping it. Any test which follows this test and tries to create tables with names tab1 and tab2 will fail (unless it

Re: [HACKERS] [RRR] 9.2 CF2: 20 days in

2011-07-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: * 1/2 of patches are still pending development: 12 waiting on author, and 18 waiting for review. In addition, 7 patches are waiting for a committer. We need to start marking the patches that are Waiting on Author as Returned

Re: [HACKERS] Extra check in 9.0 exclusion constraint unintended consequences

2011-07-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote: In the 9.0 version of exclusion constraints, we added an extra check to ensure that, when searching for a conflict, a tuple at least found itself as a conflict. This extra check is not present in 9.1+. It was designed to

Re: [HACKERS] SSI atomic commit

2011-07-07 Thread Kevin Grittner
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: On 05.07.2011 20:03, Kevin Grittner wrote: In reviewing the 2PC changes mentioned in a separate post, both Dan and I realized that these were dependent on the assumption that SSI's commitSeqNo is assigned in the order in which the

Re: [HACKERS] Moving the community git server

2011-07-07 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 17:12, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 17:09, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: This move should now be completed. Something weird seems to have happened to the gitweb service at the same

Re: [HACKERS] [v9.2] Fix leaky-view problem, part 1

2011-07-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote: My opinion is ALTER TABLE SET/RESET code should be enhanced to accept an operation to reset all the existing options, rather than tricky updates of pg_class. How about an idea to add AT_ResetAllRelOptions for internal use

Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistency between postgresql.conf and docs

2011-07-07 Thread Tom Lane
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: My preference would be to have: # REPLICATION # - Master Settings - # these settings affect the master role in replication # they will be ignored on the standby ... settings

Re: [HACKERS] [RRR] 9.2 CF2: 20 days in

2011-07-07 Thread Joshua Berkus
Robert, We need to start marking the patches that are Waiting on Author as Returned with Feedback, ideally after checking that the status in the CF application is in fact up to date. With a week left in the CommitFest at this point, anything that has been reviewed and still has issues is

Re: [HACKERS] Moving the community git server

2011-07-07 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 17:09, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git OK http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=postgresql.git 404 Should be fixed with a redirect now. Thanks, my

Re: [HACKERS] [RRR] 9.2 CF2: 20 days in

2011-07-07 Thread Tom Lane
Joshua Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes: I have been attempting to keep somewhat on top of the stuff that has become Ready for Committer, but there is too much of it for me to handle by myself. Yeah, given that we're still in beta, I expected committing to be a problem. Not a surprise.

Re: [HACKERS] Latch implementation that wakes on postmaster death on both win32 and Unix

2011-07-07 Thread Peter Geoghegan
I now think that we shouldn't change the return value format from the most recent revisions of the patch (i.e. returning a bitfield). We should leave it as-is, while documenting that it's possible, although extremely unlikely, for it to incorrectly report Postmaster death, and that clients

Re: [HACKERS] [v9.2] Fix leaky-view problem, part 1

2011-07-07 Thread Noah Misch
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 03:56:26PM +0100, Kohei KaiGai wrote: 2011/7/7 Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com: On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:25:12PM +0200, Kohei KaiGai wrote: *** a/src/backend/commands/view.c --- b/src/backend/commands/view.c --- 227,257                              

Re: [HACKERS] [RRR] 9.2 CF2: 20 days in

2011-07-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Joshua Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes: I have been attempting to keep somewhat on top of the stuff that has become Ready for Committer, but there is too much of it for me to handle by myself. Yeah, given that we're still in

Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistency between postgresql.conf and docs

2011-07-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: My preference would be to have: # REPLICATION # - Master Settings - # these settings affect the master role in

Re: [HACKERS] Latch implementation that wakes on postmaster death on both win32 and Unix

2011-07-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: I now think that we shouldn't change the return value format from the most recent revisions of the patch (i.e. returning a bitfield). We should leave it as-is, while documenting that it's possible, although extremely

Re: [HACKERS] Avoid index rebuilds for no-rewrite ALTER TABLE ALTER TYPE

2011-07-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Drat; fixed in this version.  My local branches contain a large test battery that I filter out of the diff before posting.  This time, that filter also removed an essential part of the patch. OK, I'm pretty happy with this

Re: [HACKERS] Avoid index rebuilds for no-rewrite ALTER TABLE ALTER TYPE

2011-07-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Drat; fixed in this version.  My local branches contain a large test battery that I filter out of the diff before posting.  This time, that filter also

Re: [HACKERS] SSI atomic commit

2011-07-07 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 07.07.2011 19:41, Kevin Grittner wrote: Heikki Linnakangasheikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: On 05.07.2011 20:03, Kevin Grittner wrote: In reviewing the 2PC changes mentioned in a separate post, both Dan and I realized that these were dependent on the assumption that SSI's

Re: [HACKERS] Avoid index rebuilds for no-rewrite ALTER TABLE ALTER TYPE

2011-07-07 Thread Noah Misch
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 02:44:49PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Drat; fixed in this version.  My local branches contain a large test battery that I

Re: [HACKERS] SSI atomic commit

2011-07-07 Thread Kevin Grittner
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: Let's have two sequence numbers for each transaction: prepareSeqNo and commitSeqNo. prepareSeqNo is assigned when a transaction is prepared (in PreCommit_CheckForSerializableConflicts), and commitSeqNo is assigned when it's

Re: [HACKERS] Avoid index rebuilds for no-rewrite ALTER TABLE ALTER TYPE

2011-07-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: CheckIndexCompatible() calls ComputeIndexAttrs() to resolve the new operator classes, collations and exclusion operators for each index column.  It then checks those against the existing values for the same.  I figured that

Re: [HACKERS] Small SSI issues

2011-07-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: Well, as long as we can verify that OLDSERXID_MAX_PAGE has the same value for BLCKSZ=8K before and after this patch, I don't see any real downside to applying it.  If,

Re: [HACKERS] Avoid index rebuilds for no-rewrite ALTER TABLE ALTER TYPE

2011-07-07 Thread Noah Misch
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 03:06:46PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: CheckIndexCompatible() calls ComputeIndexAttrs() to resolve the new operator classes, collations and exclusion operators for each index column.  It then checks

Re: [HACKERS] Avoid index rebuilds for no-rewrite ALTER TABLE ALTER TYPE

2011-07-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 03:06:46PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: CheckIndexCompatible() calls ComputeIndexAttrs() to resolve the new operator classes,

Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistency between postgresql.conf and docs

2011-07-07 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tor, 2011-07-07 at 13:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: OK, so the plan is to move these settings into a separate top-level group Replication, and sub-divide into master and standby settings, Most of the messages use the term primary rather than master. I think there was a discussion in 9.0 in

Re: [HACKERS] Make relation_openrv atomic wrt DDL

2011-07-07 Thread Noah Misch
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 11:43:30AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Attached.  I made the counter 64 bits wide, handled the nothing-found case per your idea, and improved a few comments cosmetically.  I have not attempted

[HACKERS] excessive backpatching of gitignore files

2011-07-07 Thread Peter Eisentraut
I noticed that the 8.4 branch has a file contrib/pg_upgrade/.gitignore even though that version does not ship pg_upgrade. Apparently, a few .gitignore files have been backpatched without checking whether they apply. pg_archivecleanup and unaccent are also affected, and there might be other

Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistency between postgresql.conf and docs

2011-07-07 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: On tor, 2011-07-07 at 13:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: OK, so the plan is to move these settings into a separate top-level group Replication, and sub-divide into master and standby settings, Most of the messages use the term primary rather than master. I

Re: [HACKERS] spurious use of %m format in pg_upgrade

2011-07-07 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tor, 2011-07-07 at 00:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Is there a way to persuade gcc to complain about such extensions when used in contexts where we don't know they work? I don't think so. First of all, the comment in pg_config_manual.h says that we *want* the compiler to recognize %m as valid,

Re: [HACKERS] SSI atomic commit

2011-07-07 Thread Tom Lane
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes: Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: That yields a much smaller patch (attached). How does this look to you, am I missing anything? Very clever. I'll need to study this and think about it. I'll try to post a

Re: [HACKERS] SSI atomic commit

2011-07-07 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 07.07.2011 21:50, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 07.07.2011 19:41, Kevin Grittner wrote: Heikki Linnakangasheikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: On 05.07.2011 20:03, Kevin Grittner wrote: In reviewing the 2PC changes mentioned in a separate post, both Dan and I realized that these were

Re: [HACKERS] SSI atomic commit

2011-07-07 Thread Tom Lane
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes: Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Just so everybody's clear --- this isn't making beta3, if it's not going to get committed today. Yeah, Heikki let me know that off-list. I thought the last mention on the -hackers list of a cutoff date

Re: [HACKERS] SSI atomic commit

2011-07-07 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes: Kevin and Dan also pointed out that a 2PC transaction can stay in prepared state for a long time, and we could optimize that by setting prepareSeqNo only at the final COMMIT PREPARED. I objected to that, for the reason that it's

[HACKERS] -Wformat-zero-length

2011-07-07 Thread Peter Eisentraut
I was adding gcc printf attributes to more functions in obscure places, and now I'm seeing this in pg_upgrade: relfilenode.c:72:2: warning: zero-length gnu_printf format string [-Wformat-zero-length] So the options I can see are either adding the compiler option -Wno-format-zero-length (with

Re: [HACKERS] SSI atomic commit

2011-07-07 Thread Dan Ports
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 04:48:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Seems to me there's a more fundamental reason not to do that, which is that once you've done PREPARE it is no longer legitimate to decide to roll back the transaction to get out of a dangerous structure --- ie, you have to target one of

Re: [HACKERS] SSI atomic commit

2011-07-07 Thread Kevin Grittner
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes: Kevin and Dan also pointed out that a 2PC transaction can stay in prepared state for a long time, and we could optimize that by setting prepareSeqNo only at the final COMMIT PREPARED. I objected

Re: [HACKERS] SSI atomic commit

2011-07-07 Thread Dan Ports
We should also apply the attached patch, which corrects a minor issue with the conditions for flagging transactions that could potentially make a snapshot unsafe. There's a small window wherein a transaction is committed but not yet on the finished list, and we shouldn't flag it as a potential

Re: [HACKERS] SSI atomic commit

2011-07-07 Thread Kevin Grittner
Dan Ports d...@csail.mit.edu wrote: We should also apply the attached patch, which corrects a minor issue with the conditions for flagging transactions that could potentially make a snapshot unsafe. There's a small window wherein a transaction is committed but not yet on the finished list,

Re: [HACKERS] Re: patch review : Add ability to constrain backend temporary file space

2011-07-07 Thread Cédric Villemain
2011/6/24 Mark Kirkwood mark.kirkw...@catalyst.net.nz: This  version moves the check *before* we write the new buffer, so should take care of issues about really large write buffers, plugins etc. Also I *think* that means there is no need to amend the documentation. Cheers Mark P.s:

Re: [HACKERS] SSI atomic commit

2011-07-07 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 08.07.2011 00:21, Dan Ports wrote: We should also apply the attached patch, which corrects a minor issue with the conditions for flagging transactions that could potentially make a snapshot unsafe. There's a small window wherein a transaction is committed but not yet on the finished list,

Re: [HACKERS] SSI atomic commit

2011-07-07 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 08.07.2011 00:33, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 08.07.2011 00:21, Dan Ports wrote: We should also apply the attached patch, which corrects a minor issue with the conditions for flagging transactions that could potentially make a snapshot unsafe. There's a small window wherein a transaction

Re: [HACKERS] SSI atomic commit

2011-07-07 Thread Kevin Grittner
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I'll commit this too.. Thanks much for staying up past midnight to get these into beta3! -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] -Wformat-zero-length

2011-07-07 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: I was adding gcc printf attributes to more functions in obscure places, and now I'm seeing this in pg_upgrade: relfilenode.c:72:2: warning: zero-length gnu_printf format string [-Wformat-zero-length] So the options I can see are either adding the

Re: [HACKERS] -Wformat-zero-length

2011-07-07 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: I was adding gcc printf attributes to more functions in obscure places, and now I'm seeing this in pg_upgrade: relfilenode.c:72:2: warning: zero-length gnu_printf format string [-Wformat-zero-length] Shouldn't it be prep_status(\n)? If

Re: [HACKERS] [v9.2] Fix leaky-view problem, part 2

2011-07-07 Thread Noah Misch
On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 11:41:47AM +0200, Kohei KaiGai wrote: The simplified version of fix-leaky-view patch. The part of reloptions for views got splitted out into the part-0 patch, so it needs to be applied prior to this patch. Rest of logic to prevent unexpected pushing down across security

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

2011-07-07 Thread Brar Piening
Original Message Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches From: Craig Ringer cr...@postnewspapers.com.au To: Brar Piening b...@gmx.de Date: 07.07.2011 16:44 Frankly, I suggest leaving these tests for the buildfarm to sort out. I don't see any sign of build

Re: [HACKERS] Online base backup from the hot-standby

2011-07-07 Thread Jun Ishiduka
As you proposed, adding new field which stores the backup end location taken from minRecoveryPoint, into pg_control sounds good idea. Update patch. Regards. Jun Ishizuka NTT Software Corporation TEL:045-317-7018 E-Mail: ishizuka@po.ntts.co.jp

Re: [HACKERS] Make relation_openrv atomic wrt DDL

2011-07-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Yes.  DDL-DDL concurrency is a much smaller practical concern, but it is a quality-of-implementation hole. Agreed, although I'm not too pleased about the fact that this doesn't fix nextval(). That seems like a fairly

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Allow \dd to show constraint comments

2011-07-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote: I was kind of hoping to avoid dealing with this can of worms with this simple patch, which by itself seems uncontroversial. If there's consensus that \dd and the other backslash commands need further reworking, I can

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Creating temp tables inside read only transactions

2011-07-07 Thread Darren Duncan
Guillaume Lelarge wrote [on pgsql-general]: On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 16:01 +, mike beeper wrote [on pgsql-general]: I have a function that creates a temp table, populate it with results during intermediate processing, and reads from it at the end. When the transaction is marked as read only,

[HACKERS] proposal: new contrib module plpgsql's embeded sql validator

2011-07-07 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello all, a lazy deep SQL validation inside plpgsq functions is interesting attribute. It allows to work with temporary tables and it make testing and debugging harder, because lot of errors in embedded queries are detected too late. I wrote a simple module that can to help little bit. It is

Re: [HACKERS] Extra check in 9.0 exclusion constraint unintended consequences

2011-07-07 Thread Jeff Davis
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 12:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: I think it's probably too late to go fiddling with the behavior of 9.0 at this point. If we change the text of error messages, there is a chance that it might break applications; it would also require those messages to be re-translated,

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Creating temp tables inside read only transactions

2011-07-07 Thread Jeff Davis
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 20:56 -0700, Darren Duncan wrote: When you create a temporary table, PostgreSQL needs to add rows in pg_class, pg_attribute, and probably other system catalogs. So there are writes, which aren't possible in a read-only transaction. Hence the error. And no, there is no

Re: [HACKERS] dropping table in testcase alter_table.sql

2011-07-07 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:05 AM, Ashutosh Bapat ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I noticed that the test alter_table.sql is creating two tables tab1 and tab2 and it's not dropping it. Any test which follows this