[HACKERS] Reconstructing Insert queries with indirection

2012-03-21 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
Hi All, Consider following sequence of commands create type complex as (r float8, i float8); create type quad as (c1 complex, c2 complex); create temp table quadtable(f1 int, q quad); insert into quadtable (f1, q.c1.r, q.c2.i) values(44,55,66); While parsing the INSERT query, we parse the query

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improve the -l (limit) option recently added to contrib/vacuumlo

2012-03-21 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 21.03.2012 01:05, Tom Lane wrote: Improve the -l (limit) option recently added to contrib/vacuumlo. Instead of just stopping after removing an arbitrary subset of orphaned large objects, commit and start a new transaction after each -l objects. This is just as effective as the original patch

Re: [HACKERS] Chronic performance issue with Replication Failover and FSM.

2012-03-21 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 20.03.2012 23:41, Josh Berkus wrote: Heikki, The FSM is included in the base backup, and it is updated when VACUUM records are replayed. Oh? H. In that case, the issue I'm seeing in production is something else. Unless that was a change for 9.1? No, it's been like that since

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Create index on foreign table

2012-03-21 Thread Etsuro Fujita
(2012/03/21 4:39), Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Etsuro Fujita fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote: For a flat file, CREATE INDEX constructs an index in the same way as an index for a regular table. It seems really weird to have the data half inside the database and

Re: [HACKERS] [v9.2] Add GUC sepgsql.client_label

2012-03-21 Thread Kohei KaiGai
2012/3/20 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com: On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Yeb Havinga yebhavi...@gmail.com wrote: In the patch with copy-editing documentation following that commit, at in at their option, s/in// ? Oh, yeah.  Oops.  Thanks. Also 'rather than .. as mandated by the

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres 8.4 planner question - bad plan, good plan for almost same queries.

2012-03-21 Thread Дмитрий
I think the reason the planner isn't too bright about this case is http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.gita=commitdiffh=cd1f0d04bf06938c0ee5728fc8424d62bcf2eef3 ie, it won't do IN/EXISTS pullup below a NOT EXISTS. HEAD is better, thanks to commit

Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: [HACKERS] Moving more work outside WALInsertLock)

2012-03-21 Thread Fujii Masao
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: When all those changes are put together, the patched version now beats or matches the current code in the RAM drive tests, except that the single-client case is still about 10% slower. I added the new

Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: [HACKERS] Moving more work outside WALInsertLock)

2012-03-21 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 21.03.2012 13:14, Fujii Masao wrote: PANIC: space reserved for WAL record does not match what was written, CurrPos: C/0, EndPos: B/FF00 So I think that the patch would have a bug which handles WAL boundary wrongly. Thanks for the testing! These WAL boundary issues are really

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Create index on foreign table

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 4:47 AM, Etsuro Fujita fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote: I did an investigation on DB2 a little bit.  DB2 uses the CREATE INDEX SPECIFICATION ONLY statement to define the properties of a remote index.    CREATE INDEX index_name ON foreintable_name    (column_name)

Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: [HACKERS] Moving more work outside WALInsertLock)

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: So, although none of the issues alone is a show-stopper, but considering all these things together, I'm starting to feel that this needs to be pushed to 9.3. Thoughts? I think I agree. I like the

Re: [HACKERS] Memory usage during sorting

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: Frankly that analysis didn't make any sense to me at the time. Comparing integers is fast, sure, but it's still slower than not having to do any comparison

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improve the -l (limit) option recently added to contrib/vacuumlo

2012-03-21 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes: On 21.03.2012 01:05, Tom Lane wrote: Improve the -l (limit) option recently added to contrib/vacuumlo. Shouldn't this be backported? Without it, vacuumlo is effectively broken in 9.0 and 9.1. I was wondering about that. You

Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: [HACKERS] Moving more work outside WALInsertLock)

2012-03-21 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes: ... although none of the issues alone is a show-stopper, but considering all these things together, I'm starting to feel that this needs to be pushed to 9.3. Thoughts? Agreed. In particular, I think you are right that it'd be

Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 Idea --- Social Network database schema

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Qi Huang huangq...@hotmail.com wrote: Thanks so much, Neil. I think I kind of understand the situation for now. The implementation posted by Neil was for the purpose of the talk, thus rushed and may not be up to st andard of Postgres Community. Also Neil

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Create index on foreign table

2012-03-21 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 4:47 AM, Etsuro Fujita fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote: I did an investigation on DB2 a little bit. DB2 uses the CREATE INDEX SPECIFICATION ONLY statement to define the properties of a remote index. CREATE INDEX

Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 Idea --- Social Network database schema

2012-03-21 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: One thing we should probably try to establish before you get started working on this is whether people want the feature, which is basically the ability to write something like this in the FROM clause of a query: table_name TABLESAMPLE { BERNOULLI |

Re: [HACKERS] renaming domain constraint

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: Here is a patch for being able to rename constraints of domains.  It goes on top of the previously committed patch for renaming table constraints. I don't like the way you've modified get_constraint_oid(), which is

Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 Idea --- Social Network database schema

2012-03-21 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié mar 21 11:35:54 -0300 2012: Now that would all be fine if this were a widely-desired feature, but AFAIR the user demand for it has been about nil. So I'm leaning to the position that we don't want it. I disagree with there being zero interest ... the

Re: [HACKERS] Finer Extension dependencies

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: Dimitri, are you going to post an updated patch for this CF? Yes, I intend to do that.  Not sure about diverting from the command trigger patch while Thom is full speed on

Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 Idea --- Social Network database schema

2012-03-21 Thread Andres Freund
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 03:47:23 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote: Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié mar 21 11:35:54 -0300 2012: Now that would all be fine if this were a widely-desired feature, but AFAIR the user demand for it has been about nil. So I'm leaning to the position that we

Re: [HACKERS] renaming domain constraint

2012-03-21 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié mar 21 11:43:17 -0300 2012: On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: Here is a patch for being able to rename constraints of domains.  It goes on top of the previously committed patch for renaming table constraints.

Re: [HACKERS] misleading error message from connectMaintenanceDatabase()

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com wrote: A simple fix would be just to pass fail_ok = false for the last connectDatabase() call inside connectMaintenanceDatabase(), and give up on trying to tack on a likely-misleading hint about the maintenance database.

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: add timing of buffer I/O requests

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Ants Aasma ants.aa...@eesti.ee wrote: On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Ants Aasma ants.aa...@eesti.ee wrote: Some implementation notes.  This currently fails regression test create_function_3, haven't looked into why yet. I'll take a look at it. The failure

Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 Idea --- Social Network database schema

2012-03-21 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 03/21/2012 10:47 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié mar 21 11:35:54 -0300 2012: Now that would all be fine if this were a widely-desired feature, but AFAIR the user demand for it has been about nil. So I'm leaning to the position that we don't want it. I

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: PL/pgPSM for 9.3

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: I propose to integrate a PSM language into the core. This language is defined as part of ANSI SQL - SQL/PSM and is used in some well known databases like DB2, Terradata and some other less known RDBMS like MonetDB. A

Re: [HACKERS] Finer Extension dependencies

2012-03-21 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: I don't think we can wait any longer for this; we're now more than two months in to this CommitFest, and command triggers is still in full swing. Is it possible to have another day to send out a revised patch? The problem reported is either a show

Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 Idea --- Social Network database schema

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote: On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 03:47:23 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote: Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié mar 21 11:35:54 -0300 2012: Now that would all be fine if this were a widely-desired feature, but AFAIR the user

Re: [HACKERS] Finer Extension dependencies

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: I don't think we can wait any longer for this; we're now more than two months in to this CommitFest, and command triggers is still in full swing. Is it possible to have

Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 Idea --- Social Network database schema

2012-03-21 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: On 03/21/2012 10:47 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I disagree with there being zero interest ... the order by random() stuff does come up occasionally. Presumably the reason that's not good enough is that is scans the whole table (as well as being

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: PL/pgPSM for 9.3

2012-03-21 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello 2012/3/21 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com: On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: I propose to integrate a PSM language into the core. This language is defined as part of ANSI SQL - SQL/PSM and is used in some well known databases like DB2,

Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 Idea --- Social Network database schema

2012-03-21 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: Well, the standard syntax apparently aims to reduce the number of returned rows, which ORDER BY does not. Maybe you could do it with ORDER BY .. LIMIT, but the idea here I think is that we'd like to sample the table without reading all of it first, so

Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 Idea --- Social Network database schema

2012-03-21 Thread Qi Huang
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:00:59 -0400 From: and...@dunslane.net To: alvhe...@commandprompt.com CC: t...@sss.pgh.pa.us; robertmh...@gmail.com; huangq...@hotmail.com; neil.con...@gmail.com; dan...@heroku.com; j...@agliodbs.com; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012

Re: [HACKERS] Bug: walsender and high CPU usage

2012-03-21 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 12.03.2012 15:30, Fujii Masao wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Fujii Masaomasao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I also think we should backport commit cff75130b5f63e45423c2ed90d6f2e84c21ef840,

Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 Idea --- Social Network database schema

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: Well, the standard syntax apparently aims to reduce the number of returned rows, which ORDER BY does not.  Maybe you could do it with ORDER BY .. LIMIT, but the idea here I think is

Re: [HACKERS] Command Triggers

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote: The attached patch applies from 8.3 to 9.1 (8.2 has conflicts but thankfully...). It seems it doesn't apply to master (any more?). -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL

Re: [HACKERS] Unnecessary WAL archiving after failover

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, In streaming replication, after failover, new master might have lots of un-applied WAL files with old timeline ID. They are the WAL files which were recycled as a future ones when the server was running as a

Re: [HACKERS] Command Triggers

2012-03-21 Thread Andres Freund
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 04:54:00 PM Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote: The attached patch applies from 8.3 to 9.1 (8.2 has conflicts but thankfully...). It seems it doesn't apply to master (any more?). Its not required there

Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 Idea --- Social Network database schema

2012-03-21 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 03/21/2012 11:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com writes: Well, the standard syntax apparently aims to reduce the number of returned rows, which ORDER BY does not. Maybe you could do it with

Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 Idea --- Social Network database schema

2012-03-21 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: Well, there's something mighty tempting about having a way to say just give me a random sample of the blocks and I'll worry about whether that represents a random sample of the rows. It's occurred to me a few times that it's pretty unfortunate you

Re: [HACKERS] Weak-memory specific problem in ResetLatch/WaitLatch (follow-up analysis)

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Michael Tautschnig m...@debian.org wrote: In [3] it was suggested to fix the problem by placing a barrier in ResetLatch, which corresponds to placing it between lines 11 and 12 in the code above.   This amounts to placing a barrier between the two reads (lines

Re: [HACKERS] Command Triggers

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote: On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 04:54:00 PM Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote: The attached patch applies from 8.3 to 9.1 (8.2 has conflicts but thankfully...).

Trivial libpq refactoring patch (was: Re: [HACKERS] Another review of URI for libpq, v7 submission)

2012-03-21 Thread Alex Shulgin
Alex a...@commandprompt.com writes: Marko Kreen mark...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:29:31PM +0200, Alex wrote: https://github.com/a1exsh/postgres/commits/uri The point of the patch is to have one string with all connection options, in standard format, yes? So why does not

Re: [HACKERS] cache lookup failed in plpgsql - reason?

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: Oct 25 20:13:44  db-s-01 postgres: local5.warning -- postgres[29970]: [3-1] 2011-10-25 20:13:44 CEST adifd 29970 ERROR:  cache lookup failed for relation 319883311 Oct 25 20:13:44  db-s-01 postgres: local5.warning

Re: [HACKERS] [v9.2] Add GUC sepgsql.client_label

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote: The reason why dynamic domain transition should be configured carefully is that it partially allows users to switch their own privileges in discretionary way, unlike trusted procedure. The original model of selinux on

Re: [HACKERS] Reconstructing Insert queries with indirection

2012-03-21 Thread Tom Lane
Ashutosh Bapat ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com writes: Consider following sequence of commands create type complex as (r float8, i float8); create type quad as (c1 complex, c2 complex); create temp table quadtable(f1 int, q quad); insert into quadtable (f1, q.c1.r, q.c2.i) values(44,55,66);

[HACKERS] checkpoint patches

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
There are two checkpoint-related patches in this CommitFest that haven't gotten much love, one from me and the other from Greg Smith: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=752 https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=795 Mine uses sync_file_range() when available

Re: [HACKERS] checkpoint patches

2012-03-21 Thread Stephen Frost
Robert, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: Thoughts? It was my impression that these patches were much about improving overall tps and more about reducing latency spikes for specific transactions that get hit by a checkpoint happening at a bad time. Are there any reductions in max

Re: [HACKERS] checkpoint patches

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote: Robert, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: Thoughts? It was my impression that these patches were much about improving overall tps and more about reducing latency spikes for specific transactions that get

Re: [HACKERS] lots of unused variable warnings in assert-free builds

2012-03-21 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tis, 2012-03-20 at 15:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Hm. I bet it thinks that PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY is the variable name, which means that the behavior might be more exciting for multi-word type names (for instance struct foo or volatile int *. Could you check a few cases like that? Tested,

[HACKERS] HOT updates REDIRECT line pointers

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
When the root tuple of a HOT chain is dead, but there's still at least one non-dead member of the chain, we end up with a REDIRECT line pointer, which points to a USED line pointer, which in turn points to a live tuple. This means we're using 2 line pointers for only 1 line tuple. Since line

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Create index on foreign table

2012-03-21 Thread Greg Stark
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Well, above Etsuro-san is proposing the other case, ie a Postgres index definition for an index *not* stored in the database.  But frankly I think both ideas are pretty bad.  There's no reason to expect that Postgres' model of

Re: [HACKERS] HOT updates REDIRECT line pointers

2012-03-21 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: Specifically, I'm wondering if we couldn't get away with rearranging things so that the root line pointer (which has index entries) points to the actual tuple, and the other line pointer (which can't have any index entries) gets marked UNUSED. This

Re: [HACKERS] HOT updates REDIRECT line pointers

2012-03-21 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: Specifically, I'm wondering if we couldn't get away with rearranging things so that the root line pointer (which has index entries) points to the actual tuple, and the other line pointer (which can't have any index entries) gets marked

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Create index on foreign table

2012-03-21 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Stark st...@mit.edu writes: On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Well, above Etsuro-san is proposing the other case, ie a Postgres index definition for an index *not* stored in the database. But frankly I think both ideas are pretty bad. There's no reason

Re: [HACKERS] HOT updates REDIRECT line pointers

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: Specifically, I'm wondering if we couldn't get away with rearranging things so that the root line pointer (which has index entries) points to the actual tuple, and the other

Re: [HACKERS] HOT updates REDIRECT line pointers

2012-03-21 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Another issue, quite independent from race conditions against other observers of the row, is what if the tuple is part of an update chain? You have no way to find the predecessor row

[HACKERS] heap_freeze_tuple locking requirements

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
heap_freeze_tuple() was apparently designed at one point to cope with being called with either a shared or exclusive buffer lock. But none of the current callers call it with a shared lock; they all call it with an exclusive lock, except for the heap-rewrite code which doesn't take (or need) a

Re: [HACKERS] Memory usage during sorting

2012-03-21 Thread Jeff Janes
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: ... One thing that seems inefficient to me about our current algorithm is the use of the run number as a leading column in the sort key. There's no real reason why the tuples destined for the next run need to be

Re: [HACKERS] HOT updates REDIRECT line pointers

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Oh, right.  So scratch that objection.  The other one is still fatal though ... So, could we just decide that we don't care about preserving that property any more, and document it as an incompatibility in whatever release we

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: PL/pgPSM for 9.3

2012-03-21 Thread Josh Berkus
Why not just enhance PL/pgsql plpgsql is based on PL/SQL and it is ADA. PSM is relative unique language - similar to modula with one significant feature - handlers - so ADA and PSM are different languages with different syntax. Also, PSM is implemented by MySQL and DB2, so having it helps

Re: [HACKERS] HOT updates REDIRECT line pointers

2012-03-21 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Oh, right. So scratch that objection. The other one is still fatal though ... So, could we just decide that we don't care about preserving that property any more, and document it

Re: [HACKERS] HOT updates REDIRECT line pointers

2012-03-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: It strikes me that it likely wouldn't be any worse than, oh, say, flipping the default value of standard_conforming_strings, Really?  It's taking away functionality and not supplying any substitute (or at least you did not

Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: [HACKERS] Moving more work outside WALInsertLock)

2012-03-21 Thread Fujii Masao
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes: ... although none of the issues alone is a show-stopper, but considering all these things together, I'm starting to feel that this needs to be pushed to 9.3.

Re: [HACKERS] Regarding column reordering project for GSoc 2012

2012-03-21 Thread Atri Sharma
-Original Message- From: Atri Sharma [mailto:atri.j...@gmail.com] Sent: 22 March 2012 09:20 To: 'Atri Sharma' Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Regarding column reordering project for GSoc 2012 -Original Message- From: Atri Sharma [mailto:atri.j...@gmail.com] Sent: 20 March 2012 23:05