On 1/10/13 6:14 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 10 January 2013 20:13, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 05:06:49PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Let's wait till we see where the logical rep stuff ends up before we
worry about saving 4 bytes per WAL record.
Well, we have wa
On 6/22/13 8:19 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 21 June 2013 20:03, Jim Nasby wrote:
Who can be point of contact from the community to arrange shipping, etc?
Do they need to be shipped? Can we just leave them where they are and
arrange access and power charges to be passed to SPI? Sounds like it
w
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 10:51 -0300, Emanuel Calvo wrote:
> I was wondering if there is a proposal for parallelize pg_basebackup
There isn't one, but after some talk behind the scenes, I think we
should definitely look into it.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Josh Berkus writes:
> So I'm looking for a cause for this. One thing would help is a clearer
> understanding of what happens at BIND time for 3-phase queries.
Planning.
> Note that, in this workload, the user is re-parsing the queries
> over-and-over rather than using prepared plans properly.
All,
Per -performance, we're trying to isolate and reproduce a customer issue
where on 9.2 BINDs get progressively slower (as much as 2000% slower)
over the course of a long test run, in a way they *don't* in 8.4.
So I'm looking for a cause for this. One thing would help is a clearer
understandi
Josh Berkus writes:
> On 08/23/2013 01:06 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>>> Is there some reason we wouldn't use RETURN QUERY in that case, instead
>>> of SELECT? As I said above, it would be more consistent with existing
>>> PL/pgSQL.
>> How would using the same syntax to do an entirely different t
Pavel Stehule writes:
> please, can you send a self explained test
> this issue should be fixed, and we need a examples.
We already had a perfectly good example at the beginning of this thread.
What's missing is a decision on how we ought to approximate the cost of
planning (relative to execution
On 08/23/2013 02:08 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Here's a bigger patch, which does more. It is based on the ideas in the
> post I started this thread with, with feedback incorporated from the
> long discussion. With this patch, WAL disk space usage is controlled by
> two GUCs:
>
> min_recycle_
On 03.07.2013 21:28, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 6/6/13 4:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Here's a patch implementing that. Docs not updated yet. I did not change
the way checkpoint_segments triggers checkpoints - that'll can be a
separate patch. This only decouples the segment preallocation beh
2013/8/23 Josh Berkus
> On 08/23/2013 11:30 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > 2013/8/23 Josh Berkus
> >
> >> Pavel,
> >>
> >>> But it can have a different reason. In T-SQL (Microsoft or Sybase) or
> >> MySQL
> >>> a unbound query is used to direct transfer data to client side.
> >>
> >> Are you plann
On 08/23/2013 01:06 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>> Is there some reason we wouldn't use RETURN QUERY in that case, instead
>> of SELECT? As I said above, it would be more consistent with existing
>> PL/pgSQL.
>
> How would using the same syntax to do an entirely different thing be
> consistent?
Cu
On 2013-08-23 22:02, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 08/23/2013 11:30 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2013/8/23 Josh Berkus
Pavel,
But it can have a different reason. In T-SQL (Microsoft or Sybase) or
MySQL
a unbound query is used to direct transfer data to client side.
Are you planning to implement tha
On 08/23/2013 11:30 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2013/8/23 Josh Berkus
>
>> Pavel,
>>
>>> But it can have a different reason. In T-SQL (Microsoft or Sybase) or
>> MySQL
>>> a unbound query is used to direct transfer data to client side.
>>
>> Are you planning to implement that in PL/pgSQL?
>>
>>
>
For example, if you had foo(point) and much later you want to add
foo(box), someone might complain that foo('(1,2)') has worked for many
releases now, and how common is that use? If we had started out with
foo(point) and foo(line) simultaneously, this wouldn't have become a
problem.
You may p
2013/8/23 David E. Wheeler
> On Aug 23, 2013, at 8:51 PM, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
>
> > it is about a personal taste - if you prefer more verbose or less
> verbose languages.
> >
> > I feeling a PERFORM usage as something special and you example is nice
> case, where I am think so PERFORM is good
On Aug 23, 2013, at 8:51 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> it is about a personal taste - if you prefer more verbose or less verbose
> languages.
>
> I feeling a PERFORM usage as something special and you example is nice case,
> where I am think so PERFORM is good for verbosity.
I really do not see
2013/8/23 Merlin Moncure
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/8/23 Merlin Moncure
> > I think so is not good if some programming language functionality does
> one
> > in one context (functions) and does something else in second context
> > (procedures).
2013/8/23 Fábio Telles Rodriguez
>
> It just inserts nb records in a loop in 4 different maneers:
>> - Directly in an int field
>> - Then in a numeric field (that's where we're having problems)
>> - Then in the same numeric field, but trying a cast (it doesn't change a
>> thing)
>> - Then tries w
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>
>
> 2013/8/23 Merlin Moncure
> I think so is not good if some programming language functionality does one
> in one context (functions) and does something else in second context
> (procedures).
It's not really different -- it means 'return
2013/8/23 Merlin Moncure
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Pavel,
> >
> >> But it can have a different reason. In T-SQL (Microsoft or Sybase) or
> MySQL
> >> a unbound query is used to direct transfer data to client side.
> >
> > Are you planning to implement that in PL/
2013/8/23 Josh Berkus
> Pavel,
>
> > But it can have a different reason. In T-SQL (Microsoft or Sybase) or
> MySQL
> > a unbound query is used to direct transfer data to client side.
>
> Are you planning to implement that in PL/pgSQL?
>
>
yes. I would to see a stored procedures with this function
I looked into the problem reported here:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e1vcmgf-0001uf...@wrigleys.postgresql.org
What's happening is that the Var that represents "my_col" in the outer
query has typmod -1, but after we inline the SQL function we can see that
what it returns is varchar(5), so
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Pavel,
>
>> But it can have a different reason. In T-SQL (Microsoft or Sybase) or MySQL
>> a unbound query is used to direct transfer data to client side.
>
> Are you planning to implement that in PL/pgSQL?
>
> Currently, PL/pgSQL requires RET
On 08/23/2013 12:42 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
> in case (a), those priority is clear. So I think that re-taking over
> is correct behaviour.
> OHOT, in case (b), even if AAA and BBB are set same priority, AAA
> server steals SYNC replication.
> I think it is better that BBB server continue behavio
> It just inserts nb records in a loop in 4 different maneers:
> - Directly in an int field
> - Then in a numeric field (that's where we're having problems)
> - Then in the same numeric field, but trying a cast (it doesn't change a
> thing)
> - Then tries with an intermediary temp variable of numer
Pavel,
> But it can have a different reason. In T-SQL (Microsoft or Sybase) or MySQL
> a unbound query is used to direct transfer data to client side.
Are you planning to implement that in PL/pgSQL?
Currently, PL/pgSQL requires RETURN in order to return a query
result to the caller. Is the
On 8/16/13 7:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think the gripe here is that pg_sleep('42') has worked for
> many releases now, and if we add this patch then it would suddenly
> stop working. How common is that usage likely to be (probably not
> very), and how useful is it to have a version of pg_sleep th
Christopher Browne writes:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> Would it make sense for such identifiers be standard UUID
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUID)?
> There is sense to this, sure.
That ship's already sailed, though. As was pointed out upthread, we don't
real
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
>> After someone in IRC asked if there was an equivalent to MySQL's
>> server_id, it was noted that we do have a system identifier but it's not
>> very accessible.
>>
>> The attached patch implements a pg_system_identifier() function that
>>
This doesn't generate a unique id. You could back up a standby and restore
it and point it at the original master and end up with two standbies with
the same id.
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On 08/22/2013 06:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > A
> > Do we have a reliable way of
On 08/22/2013 06:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> A
> Do we have a reliable way of generating a unique identifier for each slave
> (independently of how that might be exposed)?
Probably we could just generate an unique UUID when we first detect
that we are replicating from the master with same UUID.
This
Vik Fearing writes:
>>> The attached patch implements a pg_system_identifier() function that
>>> exposes it.
>
> It's information about the server that's only accessible through
> pg_controldata. I don't know if that's justification enough, which is
> why I didn't add it to the commitfest yet.
W
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> An idea that I'd like to investigate is, PostgreSQL allocates a set of
> continuous buffers to fit larger i/o size when block is referenced due to
> sequential scan, then invokes consolidated i/o request on the buffer.
> It probably make sens
Hi guys,
I was wondering if there is a proposal for parallelize pg_basebackup (sorry
if there is already one, I looked into the inbox and did not find any).
I made a simple test and the performance gain is pretty considerable using
parallel rsync processes vs. single pg_basebackup.
i.e., for 46G
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Amit Kapila (amit.kapil...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > * Amit Kapila (amit.kapil...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> >> Enable/Disable reading of auto file
>> >> -
* Amit Kapila (amit.kapil...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Amit Kapila (amit.kapil...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >> Enable/Disable reading of auto file
> >> -
> >> a. Have a new include in postresql.conf
2013/8/23 Marko Tiikkaja
> On 8/23/13 8:38 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> 2013/8/22 Marko Tiikkaja
>>
>>> I like the idea, but I think this should be a new verbosity level. With
>>> this patch you would have to go full VERBOSE just to debug PL/pgSQL code
>>> with NOTICEs and DEBUGs in it, and th
Would it make sense to have something easier to configure that recompiling
postgresql and managing a custom executable, say a block size that could be
configured from initdb and/or postmaster.conf, or maybe per-object settings
specified at creation time?
I love the idea of per-object block siz
On 8/23/13 8:38 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2013/8/22 Marko Tiikkaja
I like the idea, but I think this should be a new verbosity level. With
this patch you would have to go full VERBOSE just to debug PL/pgSQL code
with NOTICEs and DEBUGs in it, and that output then becomes harder to parse
with th
2013/8/23 Fabien COELHO :
>
>> The big-picture problem with work in this area is that no matter how you
>> do it, any benefit is likely to be both platform- and workload-specific.
>> So the prospects for getting a patch accepted aren't all that bright.
>
>
> Indeed.
>
> Would it make sense to have
Hi all,
I understand that setting synchronous_standby_name to '*' means that
all priority of standby server are same.
and the standby server, which connected to the master server at first,
become SYNC standby, another server become
ASYNC standby as potential server.
So, how to set the priority to
After someone in IRC asked if there was an equivalent to MySQL's
server_id, it was noted that we do have a system identifier but it's not
very accessible.
The attached patch implements a pg_system_identifier() function that
exposes it.
Would it make sense for such identifiers be standard UUID
42 matches
Mail list logo
