On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
All that having been said, even if I haven't made any severe
conceptual errors in the above, I'm not sure how well it will work in
practice. On the plus side, taking a snapshot becomes O(1) rather
than O(MaxBackends) -
On Jul28, 2011, at 04:51 , Robert Haas wrote:
One fly in the ointment is that 8-byte
stores are apparently done as two 4-byte stores on some platforms.
But if the counter runs backward, I think even that is OK. If you
happen to read an 8 byte value as it's being written, you'll get 4
bytes
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wonder whether we could do something involving WAL properties --- the
current tuple visibility logic was designed before WAL existed, so it's
not exploiting that resource at all. I'm imagining that the kernel of a
2011/7/26 _石头 tanji...@qq.com:
[... cut ...]
I do not know how to use the second syntax:RETURNS TABLE '('
table_func_column_list ')' createfunc_opt_list opt_definition.
May someone help me to write a simple example of this syntax!
Thank you very much. Looking forward for
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:46 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Sounds like the right set of thoughts to be having.
Thanks.
If you do this, you must cover subtransactions and Hot Standby. Work
in this area takes longer than you think when you take the
complexities into account, as
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
On Jul28, 2011, at 04:51 , Robert Haas wrote:
One fly in the ointment is that 8-byte
stores are apparently done as two 4-byte stores on some platforms.
But if the counter runs backward, I think even that is OK. If you
happen
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:50 AM, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wonder whether we could do something involving WAL properties --- the
current tuple visibility logic was designed before WAL existed, so it's
Now that we have coninhcnt, conislocal etc... we can probably support
ONLY. But I agree with Robert it's probably a bit more than an
afternoon to crank out :-)
Heh, agreed :), I was just looking for some quick and early feedback. So
what we need is basically a way to indicate that a
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Phil Sorber p...@omniti.com writes:
Currently if you use 'ALTER ROLE rolename SET ROLE', pg_dumpall will
dump an 'ALTER ROLE' out right after the 'CREATE ROLE' statement.
I think pg_dumpall is the very least of your problems
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 8:28 PM, daveg da...@sonic.net wrote:
My client has been seeing regular instances of the following sort of problem:
On what version of PostgreSQL?
If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.
I thought it was... :-)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB:
Nikhil Sontakke nikhil.sonta...@enterprisedb.com writes:
What we need is to persist information of a particular constraint to be as
specified - ONLY for this table. We could do that by adding a new column in
pg_constraint like 'connoinh' or something, but I guess we would prefer not
to get
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Nikhil Sontakke
nikhil.sonta...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Alternatively we could bring about the same
by using a combination of conislocal and coninhcnt. For ONLY constraints, we
will need to percolate this information down to the point where we define it
in the
This approach certainly can't work, because a table can be both an
inheritance parent and an inheritance child. It could have an ONLY
constraint, and also inherit a copy of the same constraint for one or
more parents. IOW, the fact that conislocal = true does not mean that
coninhcount is
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
The reason the benefit is smaller is, I believe, because the previous
numbers were generated with the lazy vxid locks patch applied, and
these were generated against master. With the lock manager as a
bottleneck, the
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I think pg_dumpall is the very least of your problems if you do
something like that. We probably ought to forbid it entirely.
Well, we had a long discussion of that on the thread
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Nikhil Sontakke
nikhil.sonta...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Yeah, in your case too an initdb would be required, so might as well go down
the route of a new column. Any preferences for the name?
connoinh
conisonly
constatic or confixed
I'd probably pick conisonly
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 09:38 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:50 AM, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wonder whether we could do something involving WAL properties --- the
current tuple
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Jim,
That's why I'd be opposed to any partitioning scheme that removed the
ability to have different fields in different children. We've found that
ability to be very useful. Likewise, I think we need to have intelligent
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
My hope was, that this contention would be the same than simply writing
the WAL buffers currently, and thus largely hidden by the current WAL
writing sync mechanisma.
It really covers just the part which writes
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
My hope was, that this contention would be the same than simply writing
the WAL buffers currently, and thus largely hidden by the current WAL
writing sync mechanisma.
It
Hi.
I install netbeans 7. When i try to configure postgresql project, path
is set up incorectly - gcc not found
How to set the path ?
--
pasman
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 10:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
My hope was, that this contention would be the same than simply writing
the WAL buffers currently, and thus largely hidden by the current WAL
writing sync
Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 10:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I'm confused by this, because I don't think any of this can be done
when we insert the commit record into the WAL stream.
The update to stored snapshot needs to happen at the moment when the WAL
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
My hope was, that this contention would be the same than simply writing
the WAL buffers currently, and
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 10:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 10:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I'm confused by this, because I don't think any of this can be done
when we insert the commit record into the WAL stream.
The update to
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
My main point was, that we already do synchronization when writing wal,
why not piggyback on this to also update latest snapshot .
Well, one problem is that it would break sync rep.
Another problem is that pretty much
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
I would like to argue for reverting this. If you want to
word-smith details like this, relation doesn't carry any
additional meaning. PG hackers know that internally, a
relation is a table, view, index,
2011/7/28 pasman pasmański pasma...@gmail.com:
I install netbeans 7. When i try to configure postgresql project, path
is set up incorectly - gcc not found
How to set the path ?
Install GCC?
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 17:10 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 10:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 10:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I'm confused by this, because I don't think any of this can be done
when we
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 11:15 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
My main point was, that we already do synchronization when writing wal,
why not piggyback on this to also update latest snapshot .
Well, one problem is that it
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
But should we rethink that? Your point that hot standby transactions on
a slave could see snapshots that were impossible on the parent was
disturbing. Should we look for a way to
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 22:51 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wonder whether we could do something involving WAL properties --- the
current tuple visibility logic was designed before WAL existed, so it's
not exploiting that
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 11:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
But should we rethink that? Your point that hot standby transactions on
a slave could see snapshots that were impossible on the
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 18:05 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
But it is also possible, that you can get logically consistent snapshots
by protecting only some ops. for example, if you protect only insert and
get snapshot, then the worst that can happen is that you get a snapshot
that is a few
Robert,
If the value is less than v1, put it in a partition called p1.
If the value is less than v2, put it in a position called p2.
repeat ad nauseum, and then, optionally:
If the value is not less than any of the above, put it in a partition
called poverflow.
I like that design, not
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 18:48 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 18:05 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
But it is also possible, that you can get logically consistent snapshots
by protecting only some ops. for example, if you protect only insert and
get snapshot, then the worst
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Robert,
If the value is less than v1, put it in a partition called p1.
If the value is less than v2, put it in a position called p2.
repeat ad nauseum, and then, optionally:
If the value is not less than any of the above,
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
But should we rethink that? Your point that hot standby transactions on
a slave could see snapshots that were
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Hannu Krosing ha...@krosing.net wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 11:15 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
My main point was, that we already do synchronization when writing wal,
why not
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll also test out creating and dropping some tables.
Still need to work on this one.
And there results are in. I set up the following sophisticated test
script for pgbench:
CREATE TEMP TABLE foo (a int);
DROP TABLE
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 14:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
But should we rethink that? Your point that hot standby
Hannu Krosing ha...@krosing.net writes:
So the basic design could be a sparse snapshot, consisting of 'xmin,
xmax, running_txids[numbackends] where each backend manages its own slot
in running_txids - sets a txid when aquiring one and nulls it at commit,
possibly advancing xmin if
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 21:32 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 14:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Hmm, interesting idea. However, consider the scenario where some
transactions are using synchronous_commit or synchronous replication,
and others are not. If a transaction that
Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 14:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
We can't make either transaction visible without making
both visible, and we certainly can't acknowledge the second
transaction to the client until we've made it visible. I'm not going
to say
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 15:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 14:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
We can't make either transaction visible without making
both visible, and we certainly can't acknowledge the second
transaction to the
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 15:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Hannu Krosing ha...@krosing.net writes:
So the basic design could be a sparse snapshot, consisting of 'xmin,
xmax, running_txids[numbackends] where each backend manages its own slot
in running_txids - sets a txid when aquiring one and nulls
Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
but I still think that it is right semantics to make your commit
visible to others, even before you have gotten back the
confirmation yourself.
Possibly. That combined with building snapshots based on the order
of WAL entries of commit records
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Hmm, interesting idea. However, consider the scenario where some
transactions are using synchronous_commit or synchronous replication,
and others are not. If a transaction that needs to wait (either just
for WAL
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 21:32 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 14:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Hmm, interesting idea. However, consider the scenario where some
transactions are using
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
but I still think that it is right semantics to make your commit
visible to others, even before you have gotten back the
confirmation yourself.
Possibly. That
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:20:57AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
What Itagaki Takahiro proposed a year ago was basically something
where you would say, OK, I want to partition on this column (or maybe
expression). And then you say:
If the value is less than v1, put it in a partition called p1.
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 16:20 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Hannu Krosing ha...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 21:32 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 14:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Hmm, interesting idea. However, consider the
Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca writes:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Second, the key-based partitioning I described would actually be
preferred to what you describe by a lot of users I know, because it's
even simpler than what you propose, which means
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Hannu Krosing ha...@krosing.net wrote:
so in case of stuck slave the syncrep transcation is committed after
crash, but is not committed before the crash happens ?
Yep.
ow will the replay process get stuc gaian during recovery ?
Nope.
--
Robert Haas
On ons, 2011-07-27 at 23:21 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
On Jul27, 2011, at 23:08 , Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Well, offhand I would expect that passing an XML value to XMLATTRIBUTES
would behave as in
SELECT XMLELEMENT(NAME t, XMLATTRIBUTES(XMLSERIALIZE(content 'amp;'::XML
AS text) AS
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Having transactions become visible in the same order on the master
and the standby is very appealing, but I'm pretty well convinced
that allowing commits to become visible before they've been
durably committed is throwing the D an ACID out the window.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Let me know if you have questions on the approach taken.
I realized that approach which comes as replace to loaded-subtrees keeping
is unclear to me. We save paths between node buffers. But those
On 28.07.2011 23:57, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Let me know if you have questions on the approach taken.
I realized that approach which comes as replace to loaded-subtrees keeping
is unclear to
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 09:46:41AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 8:28 PM, daveg da...@sonic.net wrote:
My client has been seeing regular instances of the following sort of
problem:
On what version of PostgreSQL?
9.0.4.
I previously said:
This occurs on postgresql
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 14:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Right, but if the visibility order were *defined* as the order in which
commit records appear in WAL, that problem neatly goes away. It's only
because we have the implementation artifact that set my xid to 0 in the
ProcArray is
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
Wouldn't the same issue exist if one transaction is waiting for
sync rep (synchronous_commit=on), and another is waiting for just
a WAL flush (synchronous_commit=local)? I don't think that a
synchronous_commit=off is required.
I think you're right --
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
to make visibility atomic with commit
I meant:
to make visibility atomic with WAL-write of the commit record
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
gistFindCorrectParent() should take care of that.
OK, now it seems that I understood. I need to verify amount memory needed
for paths because it seems that they tends to accumulate. Also I need to
- Цитат от Hannu Krosing (ha...@2ndquadrant.com), на 28.07.2011 в 22:40
-
Maybe this is why other databases don't offer per backend async commit ?
Isn't Oracle's
COMMIT WRITE NOWAIT;
basically the same - ad hoc async commit? Though their idea of backend do not
maps
exactly to
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Having transactions become visible in the same order on the master
and the standby is very appealing, but I'm pretty well convinced
that allowing commits to become
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 16:42 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Hannu Krosing ha...@krosing.net wrote:
so in case of stuck slave the syncrep transcation is committed after
crash, but is not committed before the crash happens ?
Yep.
ow will the replay process get
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 5:46 PM, daveg da...@sonic.net wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 09:46:41AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 8:28 PM, daveg da...@sonic.net wrote:
My client has been seeing regular instances of the following sort of
problem:
On what version of
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
(4) We communicate acceptable snapshots to the replica to make the
order of visibility visibility match the master even when that
doesn't match the order that transactions returned from commit.
I wonder if
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, again, there are three levels:
(A) synchronous_commit=off. No waiting!
(B) synchronous_commit=local transactions, and synchronous_commit=on
transactions when sync rep is not in use. Wait for xlog flush.
(C)
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Ants Aasma ants.aa...@eesti.ee wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
(4) We communicate acceptable snapshots to the replica to make the
order of visibility visibility match the master even when that
doesn't
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Ants Aasma ants.aa...@eesti.ee wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, again, there are three levels:
(A) synchronous_commit=off. No waiting!
(B) synchronous_commit=local transactions, and synchronous_commit=on
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 03:03:05PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll also test out creating and dropping some tables.
Still need to work on this one.
And there results are in. I set up the following sophisticated
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The comparison I had in mind was (a) master + lazy-vxid + [1]sinval-fastpath
vs. (b) master + lazy-vxid + [2]sinval-hasmessages. The only claimed benefit
of
[2] over [1], as far as I can see, is invulnerability to the
73 matches
Mail list logo
