On 04/22/2015 03:30 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
This is going to change a behavior that people are used to for a
couple of releases. I would not mind having this patch do
"archive_mode = on during recovery" => archive only segments generated
by this node + the last partial segment on the old timel
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2/17/15 10:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> You don't really need the "else" here, and in parallel cases:
>>
>> if (*conf->variable != newval)
>> {
>> +record->status |= GUC_
On 04/22/2015 12:42 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 04/21/2015 12:04 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
Note that even though we don't archive the partial last segment on the
previous time
Hello,
I'm looking into connection to postgres using authentication from client
certificates. [1]
The documentation states that the common name (aka CN) is read from the
certificate and used as the user's login (aka auth_user).
The problem is the common name is typically the user's full name. A f
Hanada-san,
> I reviewed the Custom/Foreign join API patch again after writing a patch of
> join
> push-down support for postgres_fdw.
>
Thanks for your dedicated jobs, my comments are inline below.
> Here, please let me summarize the changes in the patch as the result of my
> review.
>
> * Ad
On April 21, 2015 09:34:51 PM Jan de Visser wrote:
> On April 21, 2015 09:01:14 PM Jan de Visser wrote:
> > On April 21, 2015 07:32:05 PM Payal Singh wrote:
... snip ...
>
> Urgh. It appears you are right. Will fix.
>
> jan
Attached a new attempt. This was one from the category 'I have no idea h
On April 21, 2015 09:01:14 PM Jan de Visser wrote:
> On April 21, 2015 07:32:05 PM Payal Singh wrote:
> > I'm trying to review this patch and applied
> > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/attachment/37123/Let_pg_ctl_check_the
> > _r esult_of_a_postmaster_config_reload.patch to postgres. gmake ch
(Please don't top post)
On April 21, 2015 07:32:05 PM Payal Singh wrote:
> I'm trying to review this patch and applied
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/attachment/37123/Let_pg_ctl_check_the_r
> esult_of_a_postmaster_config_reload.patch to postgres. gmake check passed
> but while starting pos
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 04/21/2015 12:04 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> >> wrote:
> >>> Note that even though we don't archive the partial last
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Asif Naeem wrote:
> Thank you Michael, latest patch looks good to me. I have changed its
> status to ready for committer.
>
Thanks!
--
Michael
I'm trying to review this patch and applied
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/attachment/37123/Let_pg_ctl_check_the_result_of_a_postmaster_config_reload.patch
to postgres. gmake check passed but while starting postgres I see:
[postgres@vagrant-centos65 data]$ LOG: incomplete data in
"postmaste
On 4/21/15 3:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
It's possible that we could use this infrastructure to freeze more
aggressively in other circumstances. For example, perhaps VACUUM
should freeze any page it intends to mark all-visible. That's not a
guaranteed win, because it might increase WAL volume: se
>
> GSoC should be treated as a full-time job, that's how much time you're
>> expected to dedicate to it. Having bachelor's degree exams in June would be
>> a serious problem. You'll need to discuss with the potential mentors on how
>> to make up for that time.
>>
>
My bachelor's diploma is almost
There's been far more ideas and testing done around improving shared
buffer management than I can remember, and I suspect I'm not alone in
that regard. So I've created a wiki page as a place to pull this
information together. I'll try and keep highlights/important links
posted there, but help w
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> I think that would help, but it still leaves user backends trying to advance
> the clock, which is quite painful. Has anyone tested running the clock in
> the background? We need a wiki page with all the ideas that have been tested
> around buffe
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> Since we now allow CHECK constraints to be placed on foreign tables, not
> only NOT NULL, I think it'd be better to update docs on considerations
> about constraints on foreign tables in fdwhandler.sgml, so as to provide
> more general consid
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04/21/2015 12:04 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> wrote:
>>> Note that even though we don't archive the partial last segment on the
>>> previous timeline, the same WAL is copied to
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 05:04:14PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > Slightly improved patch applied.
>>
>> Is it?
>
> The patch has a slightly modified 'if' statement to check a constant
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-04-21 14:46:04 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> The main sources of contention, buffer_strategy_lock, has been removed
>> FWICT via 5d7962c6 and d72731a7. However, during the sweep each tick
>> locks the buffer header via spinlock in
On 21 April 2015 at 20:50, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Thanks a lot for this. Please take a look at the attached.
I've given this a quick read-through, and it looks good to me. The
interaction of permissive and restrictive policies from hooks matches
my expections, and it's a definite improvement hav
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:58 PM, Amit Kapila
>> wrote:
>> > One disadvantage of retaining parallel-paths could be that it can
>> > increase the number of combinations planner might ne
On 4/21/15 4:45 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> This comment made me wonder... has anyone considered handing the pruning
> work off to a bgworker, at least for SELECTs? That means the selects
> themselves wouldn't be burdened by the actual prune work, only in
> notifying the bgworker. While that's not going
On 4/16/15 8:42 AM, Jacek Wielemborek wrote:
I had a brief discussion on #postgresql and thought that perhaps there
might be a need for a tool that would enable a fine-tuning of PostgreSQL
performance settings by conveniently testing them with a sample SQL
query with the aid of a simple GUI appli
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Yes, it might be too much optimization to try to get the checkpoint to
> flush all those pages sequentially, but I was thinking of our current
> behavior where, after an update of all rows, we effectively write out
> the entire table because
On 4/21/15 10:04 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
One thing to consider is how we handle pruning of index scans that hit
multiple heap pages. Do we still write X% of the pages in the table, or
%X of the heap pages we actually access via SELECT? With the
write-then-skip approach, we would do X% of the p
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 04:19:22PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > This seems simple to implement: keep two counters, where the second one
>> > is pages we skipped cleanup in. Once that co
On 2015-04-21 16:26:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I've now named the functions:
> >
> > * pg_replication_origin_create
> > * pg_replication_origin_drop
> > * pg_replication_origin_get (map from name to id)
> > * pg_replication_progress_set
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-04-21 16:21:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> All that having been said, I don't think adding a new fork is a good
>> approach. We already have problems pretty commonly where our
>> customers complain about running out of inodes. Addi
On 2015-04-21 16:21:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> All that having been said, I don't think adding a new fork is a good
> approach. We already have problems pretty commonly where our
> customers complain about running out of inodes. Adding another fork
> for every table would exacerbate that prob
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I've now named the functions:
>
> * pg_replication_origin_create
> * pg_replication_origin_drop
> * pg_replication_origin_get (map from name to id)
> * pg_replication_progress_setup_origin : configure session to replicate
> from a specific
On 2015-04-21 14:46:04 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> The main sources of contention, buffer_strategy_lock, has been removed
> FWICT via 5d7962c6 and d72731a7. However, during the sweep each tick
> locks the buffer header via spinlock in order to to adjust
> usage_count.
FWIW, I think the best ap
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+tgmoaemnolzmvbb8gvy69na8zw9bwpiz9+tlz-lnabozi...@mail.gmail.com
> has a WIP patch that goes the route of using a tuple flag to indicate
> frozen, but also raises a lot of concerns about visibility, because
Dean,
* Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On 7 April 2015 at 16:21, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Agreed and we actually have a patch from Dean already to address this,
> > it's just been waiting on me (with a couple of other ones). It'd
> > certainly be great if you have time to take
Background:
The main sources of contention, buffer_strategy_lock, has been removed
FWICT via 5d7962c6 and d72731a7. However, during the sweep each tick
locks the buffer header via spinlock in order to to adjust
usage_count. I believe that removing this lock is possible
optimization fruit. I doub
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-04-21 10:53:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> >> I don't really like the 'pid' field for pg_replication_slots. About
>> >> naming it 'active_in' or such?
>> >
>> > It was origina
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I see that you're using git format-patch to generate this. But the
> patch is only patch 1/4. Is that intentional? Where are the other
> pieces?
>
> I think that the parallel seqscan patch, and the assessing parallel
> safety patch are inte
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>> Well, it's not actually the same message. They're all a bit
>> different. Or mostly all of them. And the variable part is not a
>> command name, as in the PreventTransactionChain() case, so it would
>> affect translatability if we did t
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> You'd need some kind of
>> API that says "pretend I'm waiting for this lock, but don't really
>> wait for it", and you'd need to be darn sure that you removed yourself
>> from the wait queue again before doing any other heavyweight lock
>> m
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 04:54:57PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-04-21 10:53:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > >> I don't really like the 'pid' field for pg_replication_slots. About
> > >> naming it 'active_in' or such?
> > >
> > > It
On 2015-04-21 16:57:45 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> * I still think it's unacceptable to redefine
> XLOG_HEAP_LAST_MULTI_INSERT as XLOG_HEAP_SPECULATIVE_TUPLE like you
> did. I'll try to find something better.
I think we should "just" split this into different flag values for
insert/update/de
Alvaro,
On Tuesday, April 21, 2015, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Tom, all,
> >
> > Looks like preprocess_targetlist() should have been adjusted with the
> > changes to ExecBuildAuxRowMark() to support foreign tables being part
> > of inheritance trees (cb1ca4d800621dcae
On 2015-04-22 00:15:53 +0900, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2015-04-21 23:59:45 +0900, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
> >> The page as frozen could have the dead tuple for now, but I think to change
> >> to that the frozen page guarantees that page
Thank you Michael, latest patch looks good to me. I have changed its status
to ready for committer.
Regards,
Muhammad Asif Naeem
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Asif Naeem wrote:
>
>> The v2 patch looks good to me, just a minor con
Stephen Frost wrote:
> Tom, all,
>
> Looks like preprocess_targetlist() should have been adjusted with the
> changes to ExecBuildAuxRowMark() to support foreign tables being part
> of inheritance trees (cb1ca4d800621dcae67ca6c799006de99fa4f0a5) to
> also include the tableoid regardless of
On 2015-04-21 12:20:42 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
> > Catalog wise there's an actual table 'pg_replication_origin' that maps
> > between 'roident' and 'roname'. There's a pg_replication_progress view
> > (used to be named pg_replication_identifier_progress). I'm not sure if
Andres Freund wrote:
> I'm working on changing this (I've implemented the missing WAL
> bits). I'd like to discuss the new terms for a sec, before I go and
> revise the docs.
>
> I'm now calling the feature 'replication progress tracking'. There's
> "replication origins" and there's progress trac
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-04-21 23:59:45 +0900, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
>> The page as frozen could have the dead tuple for now, but I think to change
>> to that the frozen page guarantees that page is all frozen *and* all
>> visible.
>
> It shouldn't. That'd
Tom, all,
Looks like preprocess_targetlist() should have been adjusted with the
changes to ExecBuildAuxRowMark() to support foreign tables being part
of inheritance trees (cb1ca4d800621dcae67ca6c799006de99fa4f0a5) to
also include the tableoid regardless of the rowMark type, if the
relati
> "Svenne" == Svenne Krap writes:
Svenne> I have the explains,
Can you post the explain analyze outputs?
If need be, you can anonymize the table and column names and any
identifiers by using the anonymization option of explain.depesz.com, but
please only do that if you actually need to.
-
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 07:13:38PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 04:19:22PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > This seems simple to implement: keep two counters, where the second one
> > > is pages we skipped cleanu
On 2015-04-21 23:59:45 +0900, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
> The page as frozen could have the dead tuple for now, but I think to change
> to that the frozen page guarantees that page is all frozen *and* all
> visible.
It shouldn't. That'd potentially cause corruption after a wraparound. A
tuple's visib
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 4/20/15 2:45 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
>>
>> Current patch adds new source file src/backend/access/heap/frozenmap.c
>> which is quite similar to visibilitymap.c. They have similar code but
>> are separated for now. I do refactoring these sour
On 2015-04-19 21:37:51 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Attached patch, V3.4, implements what I believe you and Heikki have in
> mind here.
I'm not 100% sure Heikki and I am on exactly the same page here :P
I'm looking at git diff $(git merge-base upstream/master HEAD).. where
HEAD is e1a5822d164d
On 2015-04-21 10:53:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> >> I don't really like the 'pid' field for pg_replication_slots. About
> >> naming it 'active_in' or such?
> >
> > It was originally named active_pid, but changed based on feedback from
> > ot
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> I don't really like the 'pid' field for pg_replication_slots. About
>> naming it 'active_in' or such?
>
> It was originally named active_pid, but changed based on feedback from
> others that 'pid' would be consistent with pg_stat_activity and
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:58 PM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> > One disadvantage of retaining parallel-paths could be that it can
> > increase the number of combinations planner might need to evaluate
> > during planning (in particular during join
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Asif Naeem wrote:
> The v2 patch looks good to me, just a minor concern on usage message i.e.
>
> C:\PG\postgresql\src\tools\msvc>install
>> Invalid command line options.
>> Usage: "install.bat [installtype]"
>> installtype: client
>
>
> It seems that there are t
On 2015-04-20 10:28:02 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-04-20 11:26:29 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > I just realized that it talks about "replication identifier" as the new
> > fundamental concept. The system table is called "pg_replication_identifier".
> > But that's like talking about
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2015-04-21 AM 03:29, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:38 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> >> On 08-04-2015 PM 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >>> Going forward, I think we can improve the same if we decide not to
shutdown
> >>> parallel
On 21 April 2015 at 05:49, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Moved patch to CF 2015-02 to not lose track of it, also because it does
> not
> > seem it received a proper review.
>
> This patch does not apply anymore, so attached is a rebased versi
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:29 PM, David Rowley wrote:
>
> I've also been thinking about how, instead of having to have a special
> PartialSeqScan node which contains a bunch of code to store tuples in a
> shared memory queue, could we not have a "TupleBuffer", or
> "ParallelTupleReader" node, one o
On 04/21/2015 07:13 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Hi all,
As mentioned in $subject, the TAP tests of pg_rewind are currently not
run by buildfarm machines as the buildfarm client uses installcheck to
run the tests in src/bin. A patch is attached to correct the problem.
Thanks, applied.
(I left o
On 04/21/2015 12:04 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Note that even though we don't archive the partial last segment on the
previous timeline, the same WAL is copied to the first segment on the new
timeline. So the WAL isn't lost.
But if t
On April 21, 2015 1:17:32 PM GMT+03:00, Craig Ringer
wrote:
>On 21 April 2015 at 15:19, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> On 2015-04-07 18:41:59 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> > @@ -331,8 +331,8 @@ ReplicationSlotAcquire(const char *name)
>> > volatile ReplicationSlot *vslot = s;
>>
On 21 April 2015 at 15:19, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-04-07 18:41:59 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > @@ -331,8 +331,8 @@ ReplicationSlotAcquire(const char *name)
> > volatile ReplicationSlot *vslot = s;
> >
> > SpinLockAcquire(&s->mutex);
> > -
Hi,
Since we now allow CHECK constraints to be placed on foreign tables, not
only NOT NULL, I think it'd be better to update docs on considerations
about constraints on foreign tables in fdwhandler.sgml, so as to provide
more general considerations. Please find attached a patch.
Best regards,
Et
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04/21/2015 09:53 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 8:57 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, hang on, that's not necessarily true. On promotion, the standby
>>>
>> archives
>>
>>> the last, partial WAL segme
On 21 April 2015 at 06:26, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:34 AM, David Rowley wrote:
> > In summary it sounds like with my idea we get:
> >
> > Pros
> > * Optimal plan if no workers are available at execution time.
> > * Parallelism possible if the chosen optimal plan happens to s
Hi, thank you. My understanding became a bit clearer.
At Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:35:41 +0900, Etsuro Fujita
wrote in <5535efbd.8030...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> On 2015/04/21 10:07, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> > At Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:40:52 +0900, Etsuro Fujita
> > wrote in
> > <5534ad84.3020...@lab.ntt.co.j
On 20 April 2015 at 09:28, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-04-20 11:26:29 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > I just realized that it talks about "replication identifier" as the new
> > fundamental concept. The system table is called
> "pg_replication_identifier".
> > But that's like talking abou
On 04/21/2015 09:53 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 8:57 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Oh, hang on, that's not necessarily true. On promotion, the standby
archives
the last, partial WAL segment from the old timeline. That's just wrong
(http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/52
The v2 patch looks good to me, just a minor concern on usage message i.e.
C:\PG\postgresql\src\tools\msvc>install
> Invalid command line options.
> Usage: "install.bat [installtype]"
> installtype: client
It seems that there are two install options i.e. client, all (any other
string other than
On 2015-04-07 18:41:59 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> @@ -331,8 +331,8 @@ ReplicationSlotAcquire(const char *name)
> volatile ReplicationSlot *vslot = s;
>
> SpinLockAcquire(&s->mutex);
> - active = vslot->active;
> -
73 matches
Mail list logo
