Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
I wrote:
Here's a draft patch for that. I've not looked yet to see if there's
any documentation that ought to be touched.
And now with the documentation. If I don't hear any objections, I plan
to commit this tomorrow.
Certainly no objections from me: I
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
+ PGresult *res = ExecuteSqlQueryForSingleRow(fout, SELECT
pg_is_in_recovery());
That function call needs to be schema-qualified for security.
Applied and backpatched,
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 6:51 PM Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-01-24 18:37:29 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 5:25 PM Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-01-24 16:45:42 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
* The gram.y changes arround set_rest_(more|common) seem pretty
On 25 January 2013 06:00, Kevin Grittner kgri...@mail.com wrote:
Noah Misch wrote:
The patch conflicts with git master; I tested against master@{2013-01-20}.
New patch rebased, fixes issues raised by Thom Brown, and addresses
some of your points.
Thanks for the new version. All previous
2013/1/24 Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
2013/1/24 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com writes:
On 1/23/2013 8:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
FWIW, in Fedora-land I see: ...
I'd be far more
On 24.01.2013 19:44, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 24 January 2013 16:52, Heikki Linnakangashlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
I may be missing something, but it looks like after a fast promotion, you
don't request a new checkpoint. So it can take quite a while for the next
checkpoint to be triggered by
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:20:56AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 01/25/2013 11:09 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
The official 9.0 and 9.1 64-bit builds are made with VS 2008, and the 9.2
builds with VS 2010.
Paid versions, though, right?
So I hear.
That should be clearer, that 64-bit support
On 2013-01-25 13:56:11 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-01-25 08:49:10 +, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Make pg_dump exclude unlogged table data on hot standby slaves
This missed the fact that there is no
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-01-25 13:56:11 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2013-01-25 08:49:10 +, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Make pg_dump exclude unlogged
2013/1/25 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I'd love to see this fix still make it into 9.3.
Working on it right now, actually.
Thank you all for collaboration
Best regards
Pavel
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
2013/1/25 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 05:40:54PM +, ja...@illusorystudios.com wrote:
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7515
Logged by: James Bellinger
Email address: ja...@illusorystudios.com
PostgreSQL
On 2013-01-24 20:45:20 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 05:40:54PM +, ja...@illusorystudios.com wrote:
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7515
Logged by: James Bellinger
Email address: ja...@illusorystudios.com
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:22:40PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-01-24 20:45:20 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 05:40:54PM +, ja...@illusorystudios.com wrote:
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7515
Logged by:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-01-25 13:56:11 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Just a reminder we might have *BSD performance issues with our use of
Posix shared memory in Postgres 9.3. I am attaching the PDF the user
posted.
This is a good point. The question which I believe I asked before and
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:47:51AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Just a reminder we might have *BSD performance issues with our use of
Posix shared memory in Postgres 9.3. I am attaching the PDF the user
posted.
This is
Cody Cutrer wrote:
9.1 introduced delayed validation on FKs, and 9.2 on table constraints,
however neither one has been useful due to lesser-locks on ALTER TABLE
being reverted (see
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1330350691-su...@alvh.no-ip.org),
preventing the lock benefits during the
Hi,
Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us
wrote:
Just a reminder we might have *BSD performance issues with our use
of Posix shared memory in Postgres 9.3. I am attaching the PDF the
user posted.
This is a good point. The question which I
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wrote:
Here's a draft patch for that. I've not looked yet to see if there's
any documentation that ought to be touched.
And now with the documentation. If I don't hear any objections, I plan
to commit this tomorrow.
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-01-23 14:02:46 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
As a reminder, COPY FREEZE still does not issue any warning/notice if
the freezing does not happen:
FWIW, and I won't annoy anyone further after this email, now that its
[ changing subject line to keep threads of discussion separate ]
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Something like this part:
+ -- now try something crazy to ensure we don't crash the backend
+ create function test_event_trigger_drop_function()
+
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 02:04:51PM +, Amit kapila wrote:
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:50:05 -0400 Robert Hass wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Amit Kapila amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)
com wrote:
AFAICT during Update also, it doesn't contain useful. The only chance it
would have
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
There's no hard correctness reason here for any particular behavior, I
just feel that that would make most sense. It seems prudent to initiate
a checkpoint right after timeline switch, so that you get a new
checkpoint on the new timeline
pg_restore --single-transaction has the setup to make use of the new
COPY FREEZE optimization.
However, I don't see us using COPY FREEZE for pg_restore
--single-transaction. Shouldn't we do that? The problem is we would
need to have pg_dump emit the FREEZE, which would cause it not to load
in
We are currently analyzing an issue at one of our customers PostgreSQL
database.
The current version is 9.1.6 (update to 9.1.7 is scheduled for next monday,
no downtime possible before). It runs on POWER7 (pSeries 740) on an RHEL6.3
64-bit LPAR. The packages are built from PGDG SVN sources,
On 1/24/13 4:04 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 01/24/2013 11:19 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 08:50:36AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 01/24/2013 03:42 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 01/24/2013 01:06 AM, Alexander Law wrote:
Hello,
Please let me know if I can do something to
On 23.01.2013 07:31, Jon Erdman wrote:
Done. Attached.
Thanks, committed.
On 29.12.2012 20:56, Stephen Frost wrote:
No biggie, and to get the bike-shedding started, I don't really like the
column name or the values.. :) I feel like something clearer would be
Runs_As with caller or owner..
On 2013-01-25 16:24:52 +0100, Bernd Helmle wrote:
We are currently analyzing an issue at one of our customers PostgreSQL
database.
The current version is 9.1.6 (update to 9.1.7 is scheduled for next monday,
no downtime possible before). It runs on POWER7 (pSeries 740) on an RHEL6.3
64-bit
Tom Lane escribió:
As posted, what we've got here is sorting on a boolean condition, with
the behavior within each group totally up to the whims of qsort(). That
seems especially dangerous since the priority order is mostly undefined.
I was a bit surprised that Alvaro didn't propose
2013/1/25 Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp:
2013/1/24 Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
2013/1/24 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com writes:
On 1/23/2013 8:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
FWIW, in
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-01-23 14:02:46 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
As a reminder, COPY FREEZE still does not issue any warning/notice if
the freezing does not happen:
FWIW, and I won't annoy
On 01/25/2013 10:26 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 1/24/13 4:04 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 01/24/2013 11:19 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 08:50:36AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 01/24/2013 03:42 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 01/24/2013 01:06 AM, Alexander Law wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
But I wonder: wouldn't it be better to just expose the raw string the
user typed? I mean, in all the cases we really care about, the
information we can *reliably* expose at this point is going to be
pretty nearly
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Xi Wang xi.w...@gmail.com wrote:
icc optimizes away the overflow check x + y x (y 0), because
signed integer overflow is undefined behavior in C. Instead, use
a safe precondition test x INT_MAX - y.
As you post these patches, please add them to:
On 1/25/13 10:29 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
And I do want to get something back-patchable.
Autovacuum has existed for N years and nobody complained about this
until just now, so I don't see a strong justification for backpatching.
Or is this a regression from an earlier release?
In general, I
--On 25. Januar 2013 16:28:16 +0100 Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Did you reindex after upgrading to 9.1.6? Did you ever have any crashes
or failovers before upgrading to 9.1.6?
I have seen pretty similar symptoms caused by Fix persistence marking
of shared buffers during WAL
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:30:40AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-01-23 14:02:46 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
As a reminder, COPY FREEZE still does not issue any warning/notice if
Peter Eisentraut escribió:
On 1/25/13 10:29 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
And I do want to get something back-patchable.
Autovacuum has existed for N years and nobody complained about this
until just now, so I don't see a strong justification for backpatching.
I disagree about people not
On 25 January 2013 12:15, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
1) an immediate checkpoint can cause a disk/resource usage spike,
which is definitely not what you need just when a spike of connections
and new SQL hits the system.
It doesn't need to be an immediate checkpoint,
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Phil Sorber p...@omniti.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
set_pglocale_pgservice() should be called?
I think that the command name (i.e., pg_isready) should be given to
PQpingParams() as
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Peter Eisentraut escribió:
Autovacuum has existed for N years and nobody complained about this
until just now, so I don't see a strong justification for backpatching.
I disagree about people not complaining. Maybe the complaints have not
been
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
So if we're to discuss this, here's what I had in mind:
1. for-wraparound tables always go first; oldest age(relfrozenxid) are
sorted earlier. For tables of the same age, consider size as below.
It seems unlikely that age(relfrozenxid) will be
On 25 January 2013 15:24, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
pg_restore --single-transaction has the setup to make use of the new
COPY FREEZE optimization.
However, I don't see us using COPY FREEZE for pg_restore
--single-transaction. Shouldn't we do that? The problem is we would
need
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
OK, but can we lay the issue of a *normalized* command string to the
side for just one minute, and talk about exposing the *raw* command
string? It seems to me that this would be (1) very easy to do, (2)
reasonable to slip into 9.3, and (3) useful to
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
FWIW, and I won't annoy anyone further after this email, now that its
deterministic, I still think that this should be an ERROR not a WARNING.
As the FREEZE is just an optimization, I thought
On 2013-01-25 11:51:33 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
2. for other tables, consider floor(log(size)). This makes tables of
sizes in the same ballpark be considered together.
3. For tables of similar size, consider
(n_dead_tuples - threshold) /
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The floor(log(size)) part seems like it will have rather arbitrary
behavioral shifts when a table grows just past a log boundary. Also,
I'm not exactly sure whether you're proposing smaller tables first or
bigger tables
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On 1/3/13 12:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net
wrote:
Any particular reason? It
On 2013-01-26 02:21:00 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On 1/3/13 12:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 09:12:41PM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 09:51:46AM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
Folks,
Andrew Gierth asked me to send this out as his email is in a parlous
state at the moment. My comments will follow in replies. Without
further ado:
On 2013-01-25 12:19:25 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The floor(log(size)) part seems like it will have rather arbitrary
behavioral shifts when a table grows just past a log boundary. Also,
I'm not exactly sure whether you're
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
FWIW, and I won't annoy anyone further after this email, now that its
deterministic, I still think that this should be an
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:40:38PM -0500, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
Hi,
The attached patch (against git head)
normalizes search_path as the thing indexed
and uses a secondary index term to distinguish
the configuration parameter from the run-time
setting.
search path the concept remains
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I think if we backpatch this we should only prefer wraparound tables and
leave the rest unchanged.
That's not a realistic option, at least not with anything that uses this
approach to sorting the tables. You'd have to assume that qsort() is
stable
On 2013-01-25 12:52:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I think if we backpatch this we should only prefer wraparound tables and
leave the rest unchanged.
That's not a realistic option, at least not with anything that uses this
approach to sorting the
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I think that to do this right, we need to consider not only the status
quo but the trajectory. For example, suppose we have two tables to
process, one of which needs a wraparound vacuum and the other one of
which
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
OK, but can we lay the issue of a *normalized* command string to the
side for just one minute, and talk about exposing the *raw* command
string? It seems to me that this
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
FWIW, and I won't annoy anyone further after this email, now that its
* David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote:
As I see it, the current options are:
1. Do nothing, and insist on non-standard use of the LATERAL keyword.
I'm not a big fan of this. Providing a good error message saying you
need to use LATERAL for this query to work makes it slightly better,
but I
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
I don't think the first part is problematic. Which scenario do you have
in mind where that would really cause adverse behaviour? autovacuum
seldomly does full table vacuums
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 02:04:00PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org writes:
From the manual:
An unnamed portal is destroyed at the end of the transaction
Actually, all portals are destroyed at end of transaction (unless
they're from holdable cursors).
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
* David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote:
3. Make all cases of SRFs in the FROM-clause implicitly LATERAL.
(As far as I can tell, those cases whose behaviour would be changed by
this actually produce errors in versions prior to 9.3, so no working
code
May I propose the attached patch.
Points to note and possibly discuss:
(a) Only exit codes in do_* functions have been changed.
(b) The link to, and the version of, LSB specifications has been updated.
(c) A significant change is the exit code of do_stop() on stopping a
stopped server. Previous
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
I have applied a modified version of your patch that creates separate
secondary index references for search_path.
This patch seems pretty bizarre. What is the difference between a
configuration parameter and a run-time setting? Why would you
point people
Don't think the attachment made it in the last mail. Attaching now.
On 25 January 2013 18:33, Dhruv Ahuja dhruvah...@gmail.com wrote:
May I propose the attached patch.
Points to note and possibly discuss:
(a) Only exit codes in do_* functions have been changed.
(b) The link to, and the
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 01:35:49PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
I have applied a modified version of your patch that creates separate
secondary index references for search_path.
This patch seems pretty bizarre. What is the difference between a
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 01:35:49PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
This patch seems pretty bizarre. What is the difference between a
configuration parameter and a run-time setting? Why would you
point people to two different places for those two terms?
Should
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 01:42:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 01:35:49PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
This patch seems pretty bizarre. What is the difference between a
configuration parameter and a run-time setting? Why would you
On 1/25/13 12:50 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:40:38PM -0500, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
Hi,
The attached patch (against git head)
normalizes search_path as the thing indexed
and uses a secondary index term to distinguish
the configuration parameter from the run-time
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
However ... David is wrong to claim that it's zero-risk. It's true that
an SRF can't contain any side-references today, but it can contain an
outer reference. Consider a case like
SELECT ... FROM a WHERE a.x IN (SELECT ... FROM b, srf(y) WHERE ...)
I
On 1/12/13 3:30 PM, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
The Linux Standard Base Core Specification 3.1 says this should return
'3'. [1]
[1]
http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.1.1/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/iniscrptact.html
The LSB spec doesn't say anything about a promote action.
And for
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 01:46:46PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 1/25/13 12:50 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:40:38PM -0500, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
Hi,
The attached patch (against git head)
normalizes search_path as the thing indexed
and uses a secondary index
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 02:04:00PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org writes:
From the manual:
An unnamed portal is destroyed at the end of the transaction
Actually, all portals are
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
I don't think the first part is problematic. Which scenario do you have
in mind where that would really
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:02:39PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 02:04:00PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org writes:
From the manual:
An unnamed portal is destroyed at
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 02:20:53PM -0700, Selena Deckelmann wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Selena Deckelmann sel...@chesnok.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Selena Deckelmann sel...@chesnok.com
wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
SELECT ... FROM a WHERE a.x IN (SELECT ... FROM b, srf(y) WHERE ...)
Actually, this appears to fail already, at least in 9.2.2:
= select * from (values (1)) v(a) where v.a in (select x from (values (2))
v2(a),
- generate_series(1,a)
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
FWIW, and I won't annoy anyone further after this
2013/1/20 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Yeah. We'd need to think a little bit about how to make this work,
since I think that adding a gajillion booleans to pg_authid will not
make anyone very happy. But I like the idea. GRANT
On 01/25/2013 12:35:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
I have applied a modified version of your patch that creates
separate
secondary index references for search_path.
This patch seems pretty bizarre. What is the difference between a
configuration parameter
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:55:12AM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:02:39PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 02:04:00PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Tatsuo Ishii
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
SELECT ... FROM a WHERE a.x IN (SELECT ... FROM b, srf(y) WHERE ...)
Actually, this appears to fail already, at least in 9.2.2:
= select * from (values (1)) v(a) where v.a in (select x from (values (2))
v2(a),
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 03:24:27PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:02:39PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Oops, thanks. Here is the right paragraph, same issue:
If successfully created, a named portal object lasts till the end of the
current transaction, unless explicitly destroyed. An unnamed portal is
destroyed at the end of the transaction,
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
On Tue, 2012-12-04 at 01:03 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
For now, I rebased the patches against master, and did some very minor
cleanup.
I think there is a problem here when setting PD_ALL_VISIBLE. I thought I
had analyzed that
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 03:29:17PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Oops, thanks. Here is the right paragraph, same issue:
If successfully created, a named portal object lasts till the end of the
current transaction, unless explicitly destroyed. An
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
index 6b202e0..0677059 100644
--- a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
+++ b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
@@ -5150,7 +5150,7 @@ set_config_option(const char *name, const char *value,
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 03:35:59PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
index 6b202e0..0677059 100644
--- a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
+++ b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
@@ -5150,7
A hashed SubPlan will not be used if it would need more than one
batch. Is there a fundamental reason for that, or just that no one
got around to adding it?
A small decrease in work_mem leads to a 38000 fold change in estimated
query execution (and that might be accurate, as the actual change in
2013/1/15 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 20:45 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
About that plugins directory ($libdir/plugins) ... I don't think we
ever
really got that to work sensibly. I don't remember the original
design
discussion, but I have seen a number of
FYI, the FET timezone abbeviation was added in this commit:
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.gita=commitdiffh=7127293a5d9f655ce3ec7e009f18bac8d3d0bc1c
---
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 11:15:49AM +0200,
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:49:50AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Assuming that's how 9.2 ships, we might as well wait to see if there
are any real complaints from the field before we decide whether any
changing is needed.
So, here's a complaint: 9.2 is breaking our code for checking table
On 1/25/13 12:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-01-26 02:21:00 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
The process which deletes the old WAL files is the checkpointer. The
checkpointer can access to the shared memory and know the location
of the WAL record which has been already replicated to the standby.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 07:06:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch writes:
On 10/11/2012 03:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
The original design intention was that rm_desc should not attempt to
print any such data, but obviously some folks didn't get the word.
FWIW: in case
Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com writes:
A hashed SubPlan will not be used if it would need more than one
batch. Is there a fundamental reason for that, or just that no one
got around to adding it?
It can't, really. Batching a hash join requires freedom to reorder the
rows on both sides of
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 12:27:16PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 20 October 2012 07:43, Abhijit Menon-Sen a...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
At 2012-10-15 10:28:17 -0400, robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any concise description that applies? […]
I don't think there is. I think we need to
On 1/24/13 6:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 07:59:02PM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
On 08/30/2012 07:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 06:01:00PM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
I'll take a look at the latter option sometime in the next few weeks and
submit for the
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 04:42:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 03:57:15PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
There was also some discussion of fixing the name-check to be indexable,
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 04:55:48PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 1/24/13 6:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 07:59:02PM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
On 08/30/2012 07:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 06:01:00PM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
I'll take a look
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
