[HACKERS] Inconsistency in postgresql.conf

2011-10-01 Thread Bruce Momjian
I notice that we use '(none)' as a default for external_pid_file, while other default no-value settings in the file are ''. The attached patch changes this. -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade - add config directory setting

2011-10-01 Thread Bruce Momjian
Bruce Momjian wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: Tom Lane wrote: Yeah. I think the only sensible way to do this would be to provide an operating mode for the postgres executable that would just parse the config file and spit out requested values.

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] Generate column names for subquery expressions

2011-10-01 Thread Tom Lane
Marti Raudsepp ma...@juffo.org writes: On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 05:26, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI horiguchi.kyot...@oss.ntt.co.jp wrote: This is a review for the patch `Generate column names for subquery expressions' (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=632) Thanks for the review.

[HACKERS] Bug with pg_ctl -w/wait and config-only directories

2011-10-01 Thread Bruce Momjian
In researching pg_ctl -w/wait mode for pg_upgrade, I found that pg_ctl -w's handling of configuration-only directories is often incorrect. For example, 'pg_ctl -w stop' checks for the postmaster.pid file to determine when the server is shut down, but there is no postmaster.pid file in the config

Re: [HACKERS] Single pass vacuum - take 2

2011-10-01 Thread Jim Nasby
On Sep 23, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Robert Haas wrote: Another thing I'm not sure whether to worry about is the question of where we store the vacuum generation information. I mean, if we store it in pg_class, then what happens if the user does a manual update of pg_class just as we're updating the

Re: [HACKERS] pg_cancel_backend by non-superuser

2011-10-01 Thread Daniel Farina
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: ISTM it would be reasonably non-controversial to allow users to issue pg_cancel_backend against other sessions logged in as the same userID. The question is whether to go further than that, and if so how much. In *every* case

[HACKERS] pg_dump issues

2011-10-01 Thread Andrew Dunstan
While investigating a client problem I just observed that pg_dump takes a surprisingly large amount of time to dump a schema with a large number of views. The client's hardware is quite spiffy, and yet pg_dump is taking many minutes to dump a schema with some 35,000 views. Here's a simple test

Re: [HACKERS] Bug with pg_ctl -w/wait and config-only directories

2011-10-01 Thread Mr. Aaron W. Swenson
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 02:08:33PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: In researching pg_ctl -w/wait mode for pg_upgrade, I found that pg_ctl -w's handling of configuration-only directories is often incorrect. For example, 'pg_ctl -w stop' checks for the postmaster.pid file to determine when the

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump issues

2011-10-01 Thread Joe Abbate
On 10/01/2011 05:08 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: While investigating a client problem I just observed that pg_dump takes a surprisingly large amount of time to dump a schema with a large number of views. The client's hardware is quite spiffy, and yet pg_dump is taking many minutes to dump a

Re: [HACKERS] Bug with pg_ctl -w/wait and config-only directories

2011-10-01 Thread Bruce Momjian
Mr. Aaron W. Swenson wrote: I went through several iterations trying to find a command that can work the way we'd like it to. (Essentially is works the way you're describing it should.) So, in Gentoo, for the initscript, we have this really ugly command to start the server: su -l

Re: [HACKERS] pg_cancel_backend by non-superuser

2011-10-01 Thread Daniel Farina
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Kääriäinen Anssi anssi.kaariai...@thl.fi wrote: I would be a step in the right direction if the DB owner would see all queries to the DB in pg_stat_activity. All, including that of the superuser? I'd like to pass on that one, please. In general, I feel there is

Re: [HACKERS] pg_cancel_backend by non-superuser

2011-10-01 Thread Kääriäinen Anssi
In *every* case -- and there are many -- where we've had people express pain, this would have sufficed. Usually the problem is a large index creation gone awry, or an automated backup process blocking a schema change that has taken half the locks it needs, or something like that -- all by the

Re: [HACKERS] contrib/sepgsql regression tests are a no-go

2011-10-01 Thread Joshua Brindle
Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: snip If I have to break up the recipe with annotations like run this part as root and then these commands no longer need root, I don't think that's going to be an improvement over either of the above.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump issues

2011-10-01 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 10/01/2011 05:48 PM, Joe Abbate wrote: On 10/01/2011 05:08 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: While investigating a client problem I just observed that pg_dump takes a surprisingly large amount of time to dump a schema with a large number of views. The client's hardware is quite spiffy, and yet

Re: [HACKERS] pg_cancel_backend by non-superuser

2011-10-01 Thread Euler Taveira de Oliveira
On 01-10-2011 17:44, Daniel Farina wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: ISTM it would be reasonably non-controversial to allow users to issue pg_cancel_backend against other sessions logged in as the same userID. The question is whether to go further than