On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Attached patch adds new GUC parameter 'compress_backup_block'.
When this parameter is enabled, the server just compresses FPW
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Sawada Masahiko sawada.m...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Sawada Masahiko
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 2:32 PM, KONDO Mitsumasa
kondo.mitsum...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
(2013/08/30 11:55), Fujii Masao wrote:
* Benchmark
pgbench -c 32 -j 4 -T 900 -M prepared
scaling factor: 100
checkpoint_segments = 1024
checkpoint_timeout = 5min
(every checkpoint during
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose that the cost of the random I/O involved would
probably dominate just as with compress_backup_block = off. That said,
you've used an SSD here, so perhaps not.
Oh, maybe my description was confusing.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Nikhil Sontakke nikkh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Fujii-san,
I must be missing something really trivial, but why not try to compress all
types of WAL blocks and not just FPW?
The size of non-FPW WAL is small, compared to that of FPW.
I thought that compression of
On 30.08.2013 05:55, Fujii Masao wrote:
* Result
[tps]
1386.8 (compress_backup_block = off)
1627.7 (compress_backup_block = on)
It would be good to check how much of this effect comes from reducing
the amount of data that needs to be CRC'd, because there has been some
talk of
Hi,
I add checkpoint option to pgbench.
pgbench is simple and useful benchmark for every user. However, result of
benchmark greatly changes by some situations which are in executing checkpoint,
number of dirty buffers in share_buffers, and so on. For such a problem, it is
custom to carry out a
On 30/08/13 19:54, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote:
Hi,
I add checkpoint option to pgbench.
pgbench is simple and useful benchmark for every user. However, result of
benchmark greatly changes by some situations which are in executing
checkpoint,
number of dirty buffers in share_buffers, and so
Le jeudi 29 août 2013 18:42:13 Stephen Frost a écrit :
On Thursday, August 29, 2013, Andres Freund wrote:
If you don't want your installation to use it, tell you ops people not
to do so. They are superusers, they need to have the ability to follow
some rules you make up internally.
The
My patches option difinition is here.
[mitsu-ko@localhost pgbench]$ ./pgbench --help
~
-N, --no-checkpoint do not run CHECKPOINT after initialization
~
In latest commited pgbench, -N is --skip-some-updates skip updates of
pgbench_tellers and pgbench_branches. But I cannot understand why
On 29/08 21.17, MauMau wrote:
Thanks. I belive PostgreSQL runs successfully on Solaris 10 and later,
because the binaries are published on the community site:
http://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/binary/v9.3beta2/solaris/
Sorry, I didn't notice this thread earlier. Yes, I am building those
On 6 June 2013 17:28, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/6/6 Thom Brown t...@linux.com:
Hi,
When a statement is cancelled due to it running for long enough for
statement_timeout to take effect, it logs a message:
ERROR: canceling statement due to statement timeout
2013/8/29 Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com:
Kaigai,
Although I didn't touch this task by myself, my senior colleague said that we
calculated some possible bandwidth of leakage as an evident when we ship
supercomputer system with MAC feature for customer who worry about security.
I'm not sure
2013/8/29 David Fetter da...@fetter.org:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:05:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
It is out of scope for this feature. We usually calls this type
of
2013/8/29 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
That would close only one covert channel. Others were already pointed out
upthread, and I'll bet there are more ...
Mind you, fundamentally this is no different from allowing INSERT
permission on a table but
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
The OPs people are the ones that will be upset with this because the DBAs
will be modifying configs which OPs rightfully claim as theirs.
If that's the problem you want to solve, there's no technical solution
that will put you at ease. That's a people
Hi,
On 2013-08-30 10:20:48 +0200, Cédric Villemain wrote:
The energy wasted in a good part of this massive 550+ messages thread is
truly saddening. We all (c|sh)ould have spent that time making PG more
awesome instead.
Perhaps not understood by all, but keeping PG awesome involves
* Dimitri Fontaine (dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr) wrote:
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
The OPs people are the ones that will be upset with this because the DBAs
will be modifying configs which OPs rightfully claim as theirs.
If that's the problem you want to solve, there's no
* Cédric Villemain (ced...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
ALTER ROLE ALL may be good enougth to handle every GUC that we can also
remove
from postgresql.conf (I suppose all GUC needing only a reload, not a
restart).
It may needs some improvement to handle changing default for ALL and adding
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 2013-08-30 10:20:48 +0200, Cédric Villemain wrote:
Grammar can be added later when the feature is stable.
Could you explain the advantages of this? It will require users to get
used to different interfaces and we will end up maintaining
On 2013-08-30 08:48:21 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Dimitri Fontaine (dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr) wrote:
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
The OPs people are the ones that will be upset with this because the DBAs
will be modifying configs which OPs rightfully claim as theirs.
If
On 2013-08-29 21:26:48 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Sure, you can construct a scenario where this matters. The ops guys
have sudo postgres pg_ctl access but adminpack isn't installed and
they have no other way to modify the configuration file. But that's
just bizarre. And if that's
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
I was one who sent a bug report - this error is not too dangerous, but it
is hidden, and difficult to find, if you don't know what can be happen.
Same as bug with plpgsql and SQL identifier collisions. If you understand,
then you can protect self
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
You will not find me argueing to allow that in normal operation, or most
direct-catalog hacking. I'd be much happier if we had all the ALTER,
etc, options necessary to prevent any need to ever touch the catalogs.
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 2013-08-30 08:48:21 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
I really just don't buy that- I've already put forward suggestions for
how to deal with it, but no one here seems to understand the
distinction. Modifying listen_addresses through ALTER
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 03:22:37AM +0300, Ants Aasma wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I am not sure hot cache large buffer performance is really the
interesting case. Most of the XLogInsert()s are pretty small in the
common workloads. I
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 2013-08-29 21:26:48 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
It's not the OPs guy that I'm worried about using ALTER SYSTEM- I don't
expect them to have any clue about it or care about it, except where it
can be used to modify things under /etc which
wangs...@highgo.com.cn writes:
In order to achieve enable/disable constraint nameï¼I made ââa
few
modifications to the code.
First, someone used to build the constraints while building
table. Then inserting data must follow a certain order.
And people usually
On 2013-08-30 09:19:42 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 2013-08-30 08:48:21 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
I really just don't buy that- I've already put forward suggestions for
how to deal with it, but no one here seems to understand the
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
In the first place, modifying postgresql.conf and not immediately
restarting the server to test your changes is probably the single most
basic DBA error imaginable.
You're not modifying postgresql.conf with ALTER SYSTEM,
Tom Lane-2 wrote
Pavel Stehule lt;
pavel.stehule@
gt; writes:
I was one who sent a bug report - this error is not too dangerous, but it
is hidden, and difficult to find, if you don't know what can be happen.
Same as bug with plpgsql and SQL identifier collisions. If you
understand,
then
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Yes, one of the issues with the existing system is that you can't
specify a default to be applied to new roles. Also, there are
parameters which are not per-role yet which it probably makes sense to
be in the database
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 2013-08-30 09:19:42 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
wal_level and shared_buffers I can buy, but listen_addresses? The most
typical change there is going from localhost - '*', but you've got to
be on the box to do that. Anything else and
KONDO Mitsumasa kondo.mitsum...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes:
My patches option difinition is here.
[mitsu-ko@localhost pgbench]$ ./pgbench --help
~
-N, --no-checkpoint do not run CHECKPOINT after initialization
~
In latest commited pgbench, -N is --skip-some-updates skip updates of
On 2013-08-30 09:43:01 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 2013-08-30 09:19:42 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
wal_level and shared_buffers I can buy, but listen_addresses? The most
typical change there is going from localhost - '*', but you've got
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
there's a fairly generous but fixed-at-startup-time limit on how many
segments you can have. In practice I don't think this matters much,
but it was a sobering reminder that the main shared memory segment,
with all of its inflexibility, has
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
You and Robert both seem to be of the opinion that this hack which
brings postgresql.conf into the database via ALTER SYSTEM is a-ok
because it's moving us forward in someone's mind, but it really is
developing a system
On 2013-08-30 06:34:47 -0700, David Johnston wrote:
Tom Lane-2 wrote
I was one who sent a bug report - this error is not too dangerous, but it
is hidden, and difficult to find, if you don't know what can be happen.
Same as bug with plpgsql and SQL identifier collisions. If you
understand,
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
Technically trivial in the sense that it should be queryable from SQL
without having to write code in an untrusted PL ;).
hah.
I guess storing the file modification date along the file/location a GUC
is originating from would be good enough.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
there's a fairly generous but fixed-at-startup-time limit on how many
segments you can have. In practice I don't think this matters much,
but it was a sobering reminder that
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Yes, one of the issues with the existing system is that you can't
specify a default to be applied to new roles. Also, there are
parameters which are not per-role yet which
David Johnston pol...@yahoo.com writes:
If we alter syntax for mitigation purposes I'd want to consider requiring
parentheses around the columns that belong to the ORDER BY instead of
using the full extended syntax of WITHIN GROUP.
Unfortunately, that ORDER BY syntax is specified by the SQL
Andres Freund-3 wrote
On 2013-08-30 06:34:47 -0700, David Johnston wrote:
Tom Lane-2 wrote
I was one who sent a bug report - this error is not too dangerous, but
it
is hidden, and difficult to find, if you don't know what can be
happen.
Same as bug with plpgsql and SQL identifier
Tom, all,
I'm not one to give up a fight (I hope that's something ya'll like
about me ;), but in this case I'm gonna have to concede. Clearly, I'm
in the minority about this, at least on the lists and among the active
hackers. Let me just say that I hope all the happy users of this will
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
I think you're getting way too hung up on the fact that the proposed
auto.conf will be stored as a flat file. From your comments upthread,
I gather that you'd be rejoicing if it were a table.
I'd be happy if it was a table which managed an
2013/8/30 David Johnston pol...@yahoo.com
Andres Freund-3 wrote
On 2013-08-30 06:34:47 -0700, David Johnston wrote:
Tom Lane-2 wrote
I was one who sent a bug report - this error is not too dangerous,
but
it
is hidden, and difficult to find, if you don't know what can be
happen.
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
I think you're getting way too hung up on the fact that the proposed
auto.conf will be stored as a flat file. From your comments upthread,
I gather that you'd be rejoicing if it were a table.
I'd be
Hi,
For the logical decoding patch I added support for pegging
RecentGlobalXmin (and GetOldestXmin) to a lower value. To avoid causing
undue bloat cpu overhead (hot pruning is friggin expensive) I split
RecentGlobalXmin into RecentGlobalXmin and RecentGlobalDataXmin where
the latter is the the
Hi,
I've attached a couple of the preliminary patches to $subject which I've
recently cleaned up in the hope that we can continue improving on those
in a piecemal fashion.
I am preparing submission of a newer version of the major patch but
unfortunately progress on that is slower than I'd like...
Hi,
On 2013-08-28 15:20:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
That way any corruption in that area will prevent restarts without
reboot unless you use ipcrm, or such, right?
The way I've designed it, no. If what we expect to be the control
segment doesn't exist or doesn't conform to our
On 30.08.2013 19:01, Andres Freund wrote:
For the logical decoding patch I added support for pegging
RecentGlobalXmin (and GetOldestXmin) to a lower value. To avoid causing
undue bloat cpu overhead (hot pruning is friggin expensive) I split
RecentGlobalXmin into RecentGlobalXmin and
On 30.08.2013 21:07, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 30.08.2013 19:01, Andres Freund wrote:
For the logical decoding patch I added support for pegging
RecentGlobalXmin (and GetOldestXmin) to a lower value. To avoid causing
undue bloat cpu overhead (hot pruning is friggin expensive) I split
On 08/30/2013 03:05 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
Surely someone in the security community has discussed this?
Security community considers covert channel is a hard to solve problem;
nearly impossible to eliminate.
Let's see the summary in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_channel
On 2013-08-30 21:07:04 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 30.08.2013 19:01, Andres Freund wrote:
For the logical decoding patch I added support for pegging
RecentGlobalXmin (and GetOldestXmin) to a lower value. To avoid causing
undue bloat cpu overhead (hot pruning is friggin expensive) I
Hi Heikki,
On 2013-08-27 18:56:15 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Here's an updated patch. The race conditions I mentioned above have been
fixed.
Thanks for posting the new version!
I have a quick question: The reason I'd asked about the status of the
patch was that I was thinking about the
Uh ... why not just drop the constraint, and re-add it later if you want
it again?
My 0.02€ : maybe because you must keep track of the constraint details to
do so, this it is significantly more error prone than disable / enable
when the bookkeeping is done by the system and if everything is
Josh,
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote:
On 08/30/2013 03:05 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
Security community considers covert channel is a hard to solve problem;
nearly impossible to eliminate.
While impossible to eliminate, we should certainly consider cases like
this where we can do
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
We have issues with covert channels even without RLS though and holding
up RLS because it doesn't fix all the covert channels isn't sensible.
I think it's entirely sensible to question whether we should reject (not
hold up) RLS if it has major
On 08/30/2013 12:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
In short, we can check some check-box is a really, really bad reason
to accept a security-related feature. If we're going to put up with
all the downsides of RLS, I want the end result to be something that's
actually secure, not something that gives the
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
On 08/30/2013 12:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
In short, we can check some check-box is a really, really bad reason
to accept a security-related feature. If we're going to put up with
all the downsides of RLS, I want the end result to be something that's
On 08/28/2013 11:44 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Tom,
Does the backend's memory usage climb, or hold steady? If the former,
I'd bet on client failure to release resources, eg not closing the
portals when done with them. A memory map from MemoryContextStats
would help determine exactly what's
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
We have issues with covert channels even without RLS though and holding
up RLS because it doesn't fix all the covert channels isn't sensible.
I think it's entirely sensible to question whether we should reject
I noticed this while poking at the variadic-aggregates issue:
regression=# create function nth_value_def(anyelement, integer = 1) returns
anyelement language internal window immutable strict as 'window_nth_value';
CREATE FUNCTION
regression=# SELECT nth_value_def(ten) OVER (PARTITION BY four),
For many years now, MySQL has a feature called INSERT IGNORE [1];
SQLite has INSERT ON CONFLICT IGNORE [2]; SQL Server has an option
called IGNORE_DUP_KEY and Oracle has a hint called
IGNORE_ROW_ON_DUPKEY_INDEX (they acknowledge that it's a bit odd that
a hint changes the semantics of a DML
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I noticed this while poking at the variadic-aggregates issue:
regression=# create function nth_value_def(anyelement, integer = 1) returns
anyelement language internal window immutable strict as 'window_nth_value';
CREATE
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Attached patch adds new GUC parameter 'compress_backup_block'.
I think this is a great idea.
(This is not to disagree with any of the suggestions made on this
thread for further investigation, all of which I think I
Hackers,
The operator precedence rules seem hard wired to not be able to be
worked around, not matter what. The pain point for me has always been
the division operator -- once in a while I end up in a situation where
I want to override it so that it wraps the divisor with NULLIF. There
is no
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The reason this crashes is that the planner doesn't apply
default-insertion to WindowFunc nodes, only to FuncExprs.
I'm not sure I agree. Under that approach, any functions that have
On 08/30/2013 03:09 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
The attached WIP patch implements this for Postgres, with a few
notable differences:
Thank you for addressing this. If nobody is going to hack out MERGE, we
could really use at least this feature.
3) RETURNING is expanded - RETURNING REJECTS *
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Does this work with multiple VALUES rows?
Yes.
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com writes:
The operator precedence rules seem hard wired to not be able to be
worked around, not matter what.
That's right. In the first place, bison is incapable of doing anything
other than hard-wired operator precedence. In the second, if we did
try to allow
Hi,
On 2013-08-30 17:35:04 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
When a schema-qualified operator name is used in the OPERATOR syntax,
as for example in:
SELECT 3 OPERATOR(pg_catalog.+) 4;
the OPERATOR construct is taken to have the default precedence shown
in Table 4-2 for any other operator. This
Hi,
This is awesome.
On 2013-08-30 15:09:59 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
1) The patch is only interested in unique index violations
(specifically, violations of amcanunique access method unique
indexes); it will not do anything with NULL constraint violations, as
the MySQL feature does, for
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
This is awesome.
Thanks.
All that seems sane to me. I very, very much do not want it to deal with
NOT NULL violations.
Sure. But there's nothing stopping us from doing that as a totally
orthogonal thing. Not that I
Uh, the pg_dump part checks for version 80400, shouldn't it be 90400?
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Uh, the pg_dump part checks for version 80400, shouldn't it be 90400?
The reasoning there is that 8.4 is where we added
pg_get_function_arguments(), so this dumping code should work against that
server version or later. (Oh, memo to self: test
2013/8/30 Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com:
On 08/30/2013 03:05 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
Surely someone in the security community has discussed this?
Security community considers covert channel is a hard to solve problem;
nearly impossible to eliminate.
Let's see the summary in wikipedia:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Hi,
On 2013-08-28 15:20:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
That way any corruption in that area will prevent restarts without
reboot unless you use ipcrm, or such, right?
The way I've designed it, no. If what we
2013/8/30 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
On 08/30/2013 12:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
In short, we can check some check-box is a really, really bad reason
to accept a security-related feature. If we're going to put up with
all the downsides of RLS, I want the
79 matches
Mail list logo
