On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
postgresql://user:password@/dbname
In libpq, this is parsed as host='/dbname', no database.
That is flat wrong.
- Requiring percent escapes
And this is, IMHO, the right fix.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org writes:
I noticed while doing some tests that the checkpointer process does not
recover very nicely after a backend crashes under postmaster -T (after
all processes have been kill -CONTd, of course, and postmaster told to
shutdown via Ctrl-C on its
On 10.05.2012 00:34, Tom Lane wrote:
After further study of the bgwriter hibernation patch (commit
6d90eaaa89a007e0d365f49d6436f35d2392cfeb), I think that my worries about
race conditions in the use of the bgwriter's latch are really the least
of its problems. BgBufferSync embodies a rather
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
On 10.05.2012 00:34, Tom Lane wrote:
After further study of the bgwriter hibernation patch (commit
6d90eaaa89a007e0d365f49d6436f35d2392cfeb), I think that my worries about
race conditions in the use of the bgwriter's latch are
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I think psql's \dO command is missing the server version check which
similar commands such as \dx use. Right now \dO errors out with:
test=# \dO
ERROR: relation pg_catalog.pg_collation does not exist
when
On 10.05.2012 06:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to
git.
Thanks! I committed a few trivial fixes, below are a few more I wasn't
sure about:
* Add support for range data types (Jeff Davis, Tom Lane, Alexander Korotkov)
The range
Hi, AllThanks for your ideas on the implementation of TABLESAMPLE. I have a
summary below of the high level requirements from the -hacker thread till now.
Please give further comment and if I missed any point, please fell free to add.
1. Build a new type of node, as I should not use
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
(Why is there no time zone shown in the date/time at the top?) I think
it will eventually show up here:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release-9-2.html
Other than the comments others have specified:
On 10 May 2012 04:11, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to
git. I am waiting for our development docs to build, but after 40
minutes, I am still waiting:
On 05/10/2012 01:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjianbr...@momjian.us writes:
The docs finally built 90 minutes after my commit, and the URL above is
now working. (Does it always take this long to update?)
I believe the new implementation of that stuff is that the devel docs
are built
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 05/10/2012 01:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjianbr...@momjian.us writes:
The docs finally built 90 minutes after my commit, and the URL above is
now working. (Does it always take this long to update?)
I
On 05/10/2012 06:49 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 05/10/2012 01:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjianbr...@momjian.uswrites:
The docs finally built 90 minutes after my commit, and the URL above is
now working.
On 05/09/2012 11:11 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to
git. I am waiting for our development docs to build, but after 40
minutes, I am still waiting:
On May10, 2012, at 10:43 , Qi Huang wrote:
2. use TIDSCAN to directly access tuples. The below way of using ctid
proposed by Kevin looks good.
-One technique which might be suitably random without reading the
-whole table would be to figure out a maximum block number and tuple
-ID for the
From: Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Euler Taveira eu...@timbira.com wrote:
On 09-05-2012 19:17, MauMau wrote:
Then, does it make sense to remove #define KEEPONLYALNUM in 9.1.4?
Would it
cause any problems? If no, I wish that, because it eliminates the need
On 10 May 2012 04:11, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to
git. I am waiting for our development docs to build, but after 40
minutes, I am still waiting:
Allow the bgwriter, walwriter, and statistics collector to sleep
On 05/10/2012 08:11 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I'm not really sure why you've listed Daniel Farina as a co-author of
the pg_stat_statements normalisation feature. He did a good job of
reviewing it, but he didn't actually contribute any code.
It looks like reviewers have been given credit
On 10 May 2012 13:11, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Why can't we call group commit group commit (and for that matter,
index-only scans index-only scans), so that people will understand
that we are now competitive with other RDBMSs in this area? Improve
performance of WAL writes
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 05/10/2012 08:11 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I'm not really sure why you've listed Daniel Farina as a co-author of the
pg_stat_statements normalisation feature. He did a good job of reviewing
it, but he didn't
On 10.05.2012 13:21, Thom Brown wrote:
On 10 May 2012 04:11, Bruce Momjianbr...@momjian.us wrote:
I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to
git.
...
Couple typo corrections attached.
Applied.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB
On 05/10/2012 08:28 AM, Vik Reykja wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net
mailto:and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 05/10/2012 08:11 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I'm not really sure why you've listed Daniel Farina as a
co-author of the
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to
git. I am waiting for our development docs to build, but after 40
minutes, I am still waiting:
This bit:
Previously supplied years and year masks of
Argh. This thread appears to have been forgotten - sorry about that.
Given that we're taling about a potential protocol change, we really
should resolve this before we wrap beta, no?
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 6:08 PM,
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of jue may 10 07:19:53 -0400 2012:
BTW, if there has been no change a buildfarm animal normally does no
work (other than a git pull followed by the check for updates), which is
why it's often safe to schedule it very frequently. However, if you need
On 10 May 2012 13:45, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Right, but I think it would be good to identify them explicitly as reviewers
if we're going to include the names.
+1. I think we should probably do more to credit reviewers. It's not
uncommon for a reviewer to end up becoming a
Excerpts from Peter Geoghegan's message of jue may 10 09:12:57 -0400 2012:
On 10 May 2012 13:45, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Right, but I think it would be good to identify them explicitly as reviewers
if we're going to include the names.
+1. I think we should probably do
Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
One problem I see with this approach is that its efficiency
depends on the average tuple length, at least with a naive
approach to random ctid generator. The simplest way to generate
those randomly without introducing bias is to generate a random
page
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 10 May 2012 13:45, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Right, but I think it would be good to identify them explicitly as reviewers
if we're going to include the names.
+1. I think we should probably do
MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09-05-2012 19:17, MauMau wrote:
Then, does it make sense to remove #define KEEPONLYALNUM in
9.1.4? Would it cause any problems?
Yes, it will cause problems.
For information, what kind of breakage would occur?
I imagined removing KEEPONLYALNUM would
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Argh. This thread appears to have been forgotten - sorry about that.
Given that we're taling about a potential protocol change, we really
should resolve this before we wrap beta, no?
Had a chat with Heikki about this,
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 09:20:32AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Peter Geoghegan's message of jue may 10 09:12:57 -0400 2012:
On 10 May 2012 13:45, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Right, but I think it would be good to identify them explicitly as
reviewers
if
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Argh. This thread appears to have been forgotten - sorry about that.
Given that we're taling about a potential protocol change, we really
I wrote:
Last night I changed the stats collector process to use
WaitLatchOrSocket instead of a periodic forced wakeup to see whether
the postmaster has died. This morning I observe that several Windows
buildfarm members are showing regression test failures caused by
unexpected pgstat wait
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
When we did the 9.1 release notes, reviewers weren't credited, and I
sort of assumed that policy would be the same this time around.
Yes. This seems to be a policy change that was made without notice or
discussion, and I personally don't find it to be
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of jue may 10 02:27:32 -0400 2012:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org writes:
I noticed while doing some tests that the checkpointer process does not
recover very nicely after a backend crashes under postmaster -T (after
all processes have been kill
From: Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov
MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
For information, what kind of breakage would occur?
I imagined removing KEEPONLYALNUM would just accept
non-alphanumeric characters and cause no harm to those who use
only alphanumeric characters.
This would
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of jue may 10 02:27:32 -0400 2012:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org writes:
I noticed while doing some tests that the checkpointer process does not
recover very nicely after a backend crashes under
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:04:47AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
When we did the 9.1 release notes, reviewers weren't credited, and I
sort of assumed that policy would be the same this time around.
Yes. This seems to be a policy change that was made
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 07:20:51AM +0200, Erik Rijkers wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 06:33, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:11:02PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release-9-2.html
To E.1.2.5. Monitoring should be added:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Should I make the change now? It is easy.
Yes.
Should we remove the names completely?
That would be a policy change too, and one that probably requires more
leisurely consideration than we have time for today.
regards, tom lane
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:49:51PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 05/10/2012 01:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjianbr...@momjian.us writes:
The docs finally built 90 minutes after my commit, and the URL
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Yes. This seems to be a policy change that was made without notice or
discussion, and I personally don't find it to be a good idea. I think
the release notes should only credit the primary author(s) of a feature.
Face
On May 10, 2012 4:59 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wrote:
Last night I changed the stats collector process to use
WaitLatchOrSocket instead of a periodic forced wakeup to see whether
the postmaster has died. This morning I observe that several Windows
buildfarm members are
On May 10, 2012 5:24 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:49:51PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net
wrote:
On 05/10/2012 01:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjianbr...@momjian.us
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:26:14AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
There are some cases, like index-only scans, where I think it would be
very hard to get down to one name, because four different people wrote
code that ended up being part of that. Now you could probably get it
down to just two by
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
One problem I see with this approach is that its efficiency
depends on the average tuple length, at least with a naive
approach to random ctid generator. The simplest way to generate
those randomly without
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 05:31:15PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
I use the doc build to show patch submitters what their final work looks
like, and anything more than a few minutes delay makes that useless.
Anything that runs off the main git repo would be useless there, since it
would
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On May 10, 2012 4:59 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I spent some time staring at the Windows WaitLatchOrSocket code myself.
The only thing I could find that seemed wrong is that in the event
array, we list the latch's event before
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:26:14AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Honestly, I'm leaning more and more toward the view that we should
just rip the names out entirely.
We will need to make some decision in the next few hours.
I think this is a delicate
On 05/10/2012 11:24 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:49:51PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 05/10/2012 01:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjianbr...@momjian.uswrites:
The docs finally built
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:46:20AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I don't think 5 minutes is anywhere near necessary even for the docs,
but there is a lot of room between 5 minutes and 4 hours, so we can
definitely shorten it.
Do you want me to just setup a build on my machine like we did
On 05/10/2012 11:32 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:26:14AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
There are some cases, like index-only scans, where I think it would be
very hard to get down to one name, because four different people wrote
code that ended up being part of that. Now
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:54:36AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
We could try cutting it down to one name and see if we have any problems
with it. Robert is right that if you are thinking of this as credit
it is never going to work.
I don't really buy this at all. The fact that it's not
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
This has broken my docs build because of this line:
release-9.2.sgml:1946:Urba#324;nski, Steve Singer)
with this error:
openjade:/home/bf/bfr/root/HEAD/pgsql.9367/../pgsql/doc/src/sgml/release-9.2.sgml:1946:14:E:
324 is not a
On tor, 2012-05-10 at 17:31 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
If people want the main docs building more often that's not really a
problem other than time - we just need to decouple it from the
buildfarm and run a separate job for it. It's not rocket science..
Many years ago, Bruce and myself in
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:24:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
This has broken my docs build because of this line:
release-9.2.sgml:1946:Urba#324;nski, Steve Singer)
with this error:
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Etsuro Fujita
fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
I would like to propose to improve parsing efficiency of contrib/file_fdw by
selective parsing proposed by Alagiannis et al.[1], which means that for a
CSV/TEXT file foreign table, file_fdw performs binary
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder if you could do this with something akin to the Bitmap
Heap Scan machinery. Populate a TID bitmap with a bunch of
randomly chosen TIDs, fetch them all in physical order
It would be pretty hard for any other plan to beat that by very
much,
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Jan Urbański wulc...@wulczer.org wrote:
I found some instructions on how to deal with the Python 2/Python 3
slicing mess:
http://renesd.blogspot.com/2009/07/python3-c-api-simple-slicing-sqslice.html
Thanks to the helpful folk at #python I found out that the
On tor, 2012-05-10 at 12:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
openjade:/home/bf/bfr/root/HEAD/pgsql.9367/../pgsql/doc/src/sgml/release-9.2.sgml:1946:14:E:
324 is not a character number in the document character set
I get the same, and so do some of the buildfarm members. I've changed
the text and
On tor, 2012-05-10 at 10:44 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
The big take-away is that the release notes are mostly for blame and
to designate a go-to person for feature problems, not for giving
credit,
Then reviewers should be removed.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On tor, 2012-05-10 at 12:37 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Jan Urbański wulc...@wulczer.org wrote:
I found some instructions on how to deal with the Python 2/Python 3
slicing mess:
http://renesd.blogspot.com/2009/07/python3-c-api-simple-slicing-sqslice.html
I wrote:
Hence I think we oughta swap the order of those two array
elements. (Same issue in PGSemaphoreLock, btw, and I'm suspicious of
pgwin32_select.)
Oh ... while hacking win32 PGSemaphoreLock I saw that it has a *seriously*
nasty bug: it does not reset ImmediateInterruptOK before
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 07:40:29PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tor, 2012-05-10 at 12:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
openjade:/home/bf/bfr/root/HEAD/pgsql.9367/../pgsql/doc/src/sgml/release-9.2.sgml:1946:14:E:
324 is not a character number in the document character set
I get the
On 5/10/12 9:44 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tor, 2012-05-10 at 10:44 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
The big take-away is that the release notes are mostly for blame and
to designate a go-to person for feature problems, not for giving
credit,
Then reviewers should be removed.
I disagree.
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:07 AM, MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your explanation. Although I haven't understood it well yet, I'll
consider what you taught. And I'll consider if the tentative measure of
removing KEEPONLYALNUM is correct for someone who wants to use pg_trgm
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:56:33AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to
git.
Extra parens:
Remove the spclocation field from pg_tablespace (Magnus Hagander,
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:50:14AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 10.05.2012 06:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to
git.
Thanks! I committed a few trivial fixes, below are a few more I
wasn't sure about:
* Add support for
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:18:08PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
(Why is there no time zone shown in the date/time at the top?) I think
it will eventually show up here:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:11:54PM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 10 May 2012 04:11, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to
git. I am waiting for our development docs to build, but after 40
minutes, I am still
On lör, 2012-05-05 at 22:45 +0200, Jan Urbański wrote:
Apparently once you implement PyMappingMethods.mp_subscript you can
drop PySequenceMethods.sq_slice, but I guess there's no harm in
keeping it (and I'm not sure it'd work on Python 2.3 with only
mp_subscript implemented).
Committed this
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm worried this project is getting so complicated that it will be
beyond the ability of a new hacker to get anything useful done. Can
we simplify the requirements here to something that is reasonable for
a beginner?
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 05:57:01AM -0700, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to
git. I am waiting for our development docs to build, but after 40
minutes, I am
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Not sure where to move that to. Source Code doesn't seem right. I
moved it lower in the performance section.
I'd just delete it. Instead, under index-only scans, I'd mention it
in the detail text: This is possible because
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
GiST page splitting has the peculiarity that it sometimes needs to split a
single page into more than two pages. It happens rarely in practice, but it
possible (*). With a bad picksplit function, it
Ants Aasma a...@cybertec.at wrote:
It seems to me that the simplest thing to do would be to lift the
sampling done in analyze.c (acquire_sample_rows) and use that to
implement the SYSTEM sampling method.
Definitely. I thought we had all agreed on that ages ago.
-Kevin
--
Sent via
Then reviewers should be removed.
I disagree. We're trying to get more reviewers, and encourage them to
do more reviewing. Giving credit is a big part of that.
Are you disagreeing with Bruce's premise, my logic, or the conclusion?
Hah, good point. I'm disagreeing with the conclusion
Improve GiST box and point index performance by producing better trees
with less memory allocation overhead (Alexander Korotkov, Heikki
Linnakangas, Kevin Grittner)
Is this note about following two commits?
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
And taking this a step further - we *already* send these GUCs.
Previous references to us not doing that were incorrect :-)
So this should be a much easier fix than we thought. And can be done
entirely in
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Then reviewers should be removed.
I disagree. We're trying to get more reviewers, and encourage them to
do more reviewing. Giving credit is a big part of that.
Are you disagreeing with Bruce's premise, my logic, or the
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Ants Aasma a...@cybertec.at wrote:
It seems to me that the simplest thing to do would be to lift the
sampling done in analyze.c (acquire_sample_rows) and use that to
implement the SYSTEM sampling method.
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 5/10/12 9:44 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tor, 2012-05-10 at 10:44 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
The big take-away is that the release notes are mostly for blame and
to designate a go-to person for feature problems, not
On 10.05.2012 21:04, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
I found two corner cases with the current implementation when a page is
split into many halves:
1. If a page is split into more than 100 pages, you
On 05/10/2012 02:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Josh Berkusj...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Then reviewers should be removed.
I disagree. We're trying to get more reviewers, and encourage them to
do more reviewing. Giving credit is a big part of that.
Are you
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:07 AM, MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your explanation. Although I haven't understood it well yet, I'll
consider what you taught. And I'll consider if the tentative measure of
removing KEEPONLYALNUM is correct
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:56:33AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
As a general comment, I think that your new policy of crediting the
reviewer on every feature except when that reviewer is also a
committer has produced a horrific mess.
I assumed reviewers
Hi all,
I noticed that when synchronous_commit=off were not waking up the wal sender
latch in xact.c:RecordTransactionCommit which leads to ugly delays of approx 7
seconds (1 + replication_timeout/10) with default settings.
Given that were flushing the wal to disk much sooner this appears to be
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
The important thing about the current mechanism is that it ties the
contributor's name to a feature in the only place where we currently list
features on a time basis. So if I (for example) want to put on my resume
that
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
I have been reviewing how our new libpq URL syntax compares against
existing implementations of URL syntaxes in other drivers or
higher-level access libraries. In the case of SQLAlchemy, there is an
incompatibility regarding how Unix-domain sockets
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Well, that would be fine, too. What I think is bizarre is that I got
credit for some things I was barely involved in (like SP-gist) and no
credit for other things I spent a LOT of time on (like security views
and some of KaiGai's other stuff), and
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue may 10 16:07:33 -0400 2012:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
The important thing about the current mechanism is that it ties the
contributor's name to a feature in the only place where we currently list
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:51:28PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Not sure where to move that to. Source Code doesn't seem right. I
moved it lower in the performance section.
I'd just delete it. Instead, under index-only
It's been said elsewhere that adding all this to the release notes as
found on the official docs would be too bulky. How about having a
second copy of the release notes that contains authorship info as
proposed by Andrew? Then the docs could have no names at all, and
credit would be given
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
It's been said elsewhere that adding all this to the release notes as
found on the official docs would be too bulky. How about having a
second copy of the release notes that contains authorship info as
proposed by Andrew? Then the docs could have no
The other problem with such an approach is that section (1) would be
extremely duplicative of the main release-notes text. How about a
hybrid: we continue to identify patch authors as now, that is with names
attached to the feature/bugfix descriptions, and then have a separate
section Other
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 04:16:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Well, that would be fine, too. What I think is bizarre is that I got
credit for some things I was barely involved in (like SP-gist) and no
credit for other things I spent a LOT of time on
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 05:02:57PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
If so, we should also rename the column write_location in
pg_stat_replication?
Now that you bring it up, probably. Although not necessarily for 9.2.
I named remote_write (originally write) after that column. And, in
So, are we shipping remote_write in beta1?
Given that it's thursday afternoon US time, and we haven't changed it
yet, yes.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On 05/10/2012 06:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
How about a hybrid: we continue to identify patch authors as now, that
is with names attached to the feature/bugfix descriptions, and then
have a separate section Other Contributors to recognize patch
reviewers and other helpers?
works for me.
Hackers,
Shouldn't a call to elog(NOTICE) invalidate the current tranaction?
david=# begin;
BEGIN
Time: 0.178 ms
david=# do language plperl $$ elog(ERROR, 'foo')$$;
ERROR: foo at line 1.
CONTEXT: PL/Perl anonymous code block
david=# select true;
bool
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
