I haven't yet heard any very good argument for deviating from our
past practice, which is to credit just the principal author(s)
of each patch, not reviewers.
Is that what people want? Reviewers are easily removed. What about
committers who adjust the patch?
Well, I still think we
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 12:20:39PM +0200, Albe Laurenz wrote:
1) Expose WIDTH_THRESHOLD in commands/vacuum.h and add documentation
so that the authors of foreign data wrappers are aware of the
problem and can avoid it on their side.
This would be quite simple.
Seems
I've been trying to figure out why my recent attempt to latch-ify the
stats collector didn't work well on the Windows buildfarm machines.
After a good deal of staring at our code and Microsoft's documentation
I have a theory, which I intend to try out shortly. However, it appears
to me that this
I think that pgbench should it make it easy to assess the impact of
foreign key constraints.
The attached adds a --foreign-keys option to initialization mode which
creates all the relevant constraints between the default tables.
I changed the order of the table DDLs so that upon reinitialization
On 13 May 2012 02:48, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
One possible answer is to just legislate that callers mustn't specify
WL_SOCKET_WRITABLE without WL_SOCKET_READABLE (either just as
documentation, or probably better with an Assert check). The existing
callers would all be fine with
Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I think that we might have avoided accepting the poll()-based
implementation in the first place if these subtleties were considered
earlier, since IIRC the justification for introducing it was rather
weak.
I'm not exactly sure that the
On 13 May 2012 18:07, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that pgbench should it make it easy to assess the impact of
foreign key constraints.
I agree in principle. I favour being more inclusive about pgbench
options, even if the need for such options is only marginal, which
this
Doing some beta testing, managed to produce this issue using the daily
snapshot from Tuesday:
1. Created master server, loaded it with a couple dummy databases.
2. Created standby server.
3. Did pg_basebackup -x stream on standby server
4. Started standby server.
5. Realized I'd forgotten to
More issues: the pg_basebackup -x stream on the cascading replica won't
complete until the xlog rotates on the master. (again, this is
Tuesday's snapshot).
Servers:
.226 == master-master, the writeable master
.227 == master-replica, a direct replica of master-master
.228 == replica-replica, a
On 12 May 2012 01:37, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Right. It's not a new feature; it's a performance improvement. We've
had group commit for a long time; it just didn't work very well
before. And it's not batching the commits better; it's reducing the
lock contention around
More issues: promoting intermediate standby breaks replication.
To be a bit blunt here, has anyone tested cascading replication *at all*
before this?
So, same setup as previous message.
1. Shut down master-master.
2. pg_ctl promote master-replica
3. replication breaks. error message on
On 13 May 2012 20:23, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
More issues: the pg_basebackup -x stream on the cascading replica won't
complete until the xlog rotates on the master. (again, this is
Tuesday's snapshot).
This is already on the open items list:
Many comment references to PGPROC and MyProc should now refer to PGXACT and
MyPgXact. This patch attempts to cover all such cases. In some places, a
comment refers collectively to all the xid-related fields, which span both
structures. I variously changed those to refer to either or both
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:12 AM, David E. Wheeler
da...@justatheory.com wrote:
I need a constraint that ensures that a text[] column has only unique values
-- that is, that there is no overlap of values between rows. I thought this
was a made-to-order for an exclusion constraint. So I tried
This code is our pre-9.2 group commit implementation, pretty much in
its entirety:
if (CommitDelay 0 enableFsync
MinimumActiveBackends(CommitSiblings))
pg_usleep(CommitDelay);
This code is placed directly before the RecordTransactionCommit() call
of XLogFlush(). It seeks to
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Have I missed something? Why do we keep around this foot-gun that now
appears to me to be at best useless and at worst harmful? I can see
why the temptation to keep this setting around used to exist, since it
Hello, I've returned from my overseas trip for just over one week.
# and I'll leave Japan again after this...
restorePtr = replayPtr = receivePtr
But XLByteLT(recievePtr, replayPtr) this should not return true
under the condition above.. Something wrong in my assumption?
When
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 15:59:51 +0200
From: s...@keybit.net
To: robertmh...@gmail.com
CC: kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov; a...@cybertec.at; j...@agliodbs.com;
and...@anarazel.de; alvhe...@commandprompt.com;
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com; cbbro...@gmail.com;
neil.con...@gmail.com;
That is, if you request FD_WRITE events for a pre-existing socket with
WSAEventSelect, you will not get one until the outbound network buffer has
been filled and then has partially emptied. (This is incredibly broken,
but Microsoft evidently has no intention of fixing it.)
I think you should
19 matches
Mail list logo
