On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Do we ever want to document a way to connect slaves to a new master,
> rather than recreating the slave?
Please, please please do so. And hopefully it'll be less tricky
sooner than later.
--
fdr
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
http://doxygen.postgresql.org/xlog_8c_source.html#l08197
On line 8197 of xlog.c:
08194 /* Get a local copy of the last safe checkpoint record. */
08195 SpinLockAcquire(&xlogctl->info_lck);
08196 lastCheckPointRecPtr = xlogctl->lastCheckPointRecPtr;
08197 memcpy(&lastCheckPoint, &X
It seems like this has reproduced once more. And once again, there
doesn't appear to be any funny business in pg_control (but the structs
are pasted here for your re-check), and there are successful sensical
updates to it. The primary is running 9.0.6.
However, we do have a new piece of data: th
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 02:07:30AM -0700, Daniel Farina wrote:
>> It seems like this has reproduced once more. And once again, there
>> doesn't appear to be any funny business in pg_control (but the structs
>> are pas
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 9/5/12 5:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't see people wanting to use this feature for unit tests.
>
> If this is going to become an official feature (as opposed to an
> internal interface only for use by pg_upgrade), then I think that's
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 9/5/12 5:59 PM, Daniel Farina wrote:
>> I agree with this, even though in theory (but not in practice)
>> creative use of unix sockets (sorry windows, perhaps some
>> port-allocating and URL mangling can be done ins
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> This seems to me to be going in exactly the wrong direction. What
> I visualize this feature as responding to is demand for a *simple*,
> minimal configuration, minimal administration, quasi-embedded database.
> What you propose above is not that,
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 09:46:58AM -0700, Daniel Farina wrote:
>> I might try to find the segments leading up to the overflow point and
>> try xlogdumping them to see what we can see.
>
> That would be helpful to see.
>
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 01:37:57AM -0700, Daniel Farina wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 09:46:58AM -0700, Daniel Farina wrote:
>> >> I might try to find
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> The point of the proposal that I am making is to have a simple,
>> low-maintenance solution for people who need a single-application
>> database. A compromise somewhere in the middle isn't likely to be an
>> improvement for anybody. For in
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Milton Labanda <1000ton@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi friends, wich context is the apropiate to install this plugin?
> I have
>
> Ubuntu 11
> x64 architecture
> postgresql 9,2
> libv8-3.1 (system package)
>
> but not get install it. Some ideas?
Well, I'm not sure if
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> So, yeah, we could reserve a couple hundred OIDs for a scheme like this
> and (probably) not regret it later. But a couple thousand would scare
> me ... and I'm not exactly convinced that a couple hundred is enough,
> if there's any demand out th
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:01 AM, m...@rpzdesign.com wrote:
> Amit:
>
> At some point, every master - slave replicator gets to the point where they
> need
> to start thinking about master-master replication.
Even in a master-master system, the ability to cleanly swap leaders
managing a member of
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Daymel Bonne Solís wrote:
>> Hello hackers:
>>
>> I need a list of all triggers created in my database, but the view
>> system_information.triggers does not show truncate triggers, but it does for
>> inser
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 21:18 -0700, Daniel Farina wrote:
>> The gap between
>> pre-JSON-in-the-standard-library in Python, Ruby, et al and
>> post-JSON-in-stdlib was much smaller.
>
> Except in Python they rena
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Can we please expose the internal hash id of the statements in
> pg_stat_statements?
>
> I know there was discussions about it earlier, and it wasn't done with
> an argument of it not being stable between releases (IIRC). I think we
> can l
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Daniel Farina writes:
>> Instead, I think it makes sense to assign a number -- arbitrarily, but
>> uniquely -- to the generation of a new row in pg_stat_statements, and,
>> on the flip side, whenever a row is retired
Per http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-10/msg00167.php
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> To bring that closer to home, suppose you have a program with an open
> database connection in libpq, and you fork(), and then parent and child
> both try to use the connection.
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Thursday, October 04, 2012 12:08:18 AM Daniel Farina wrote:
>> It would be fantastic for libpq to somehow monitor use of a connection
>> from multiple PIDs that share a parent and deliver an error indicating
&
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Thursday, October 04, 2012 12:16:14 AM Daniel Farina wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, October 04, 2012 12:08:18 AM Daniel Farina wrote:
>> >> It would
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:51 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Thursday, October 04, 2012 03:23:54 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Daniel Farina writes:
>> > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
>> >> Hm. An easier version of this could just be storing the
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 9 October 2012 21:35, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 10/9/12 5:09 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> Anyone want to check for any other missing IF EXISTS capability in other
>>> DDL?
>>
>> TRUNCATE is not really DDL. If we allow TRUNCATE IF EXISTS,
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 11 October 2012 23:28, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>
For 9.3, I suggest we create a DDL trigger by default which prevents
RULEs and throws an ERROR that explains they are now deprecated.
>>
>> Well, even if we were considering this, the s
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> With the DDL trigger, we're able to do that faster. The idea is you
>> can still delete it if you need compatibility, so we get the message
>> across without an extra release and without an annoying GUC (etc).
>
> You're seeing these things
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> On 10/11/2012 03:59 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> I'm also not real keen on the idea that someone could dump a 9.2
>> database and be unable to load it into 9.3 because of the DDL trigger,
>> especially if they might not encounter it until
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> As regards cost/benefit analysis, this is a low importance feature,
> but then that is why I proposed a low effort fix that is flexible to
> the needs of users affected.
Is there any feature that is more loathed and more narrowly used than
ru
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 7:00 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Does Debian they create a self-signed certificate? If so, count me as
> unimpressed. I'd argue that's worse than doing nothing. Here's what the docs
> say (rightly) about such certificates:
Debian will give you a self signed certificate by
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> There's a lot of shades of gray to that one. Way too many to say
> they're right *or* wrong, IMHO.
We can agree it is 'sub-ideal', but there is not one doubt in my mind
that it is not 'right' given the scope of Debian's task, which does
*
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 3 October 2012 19:04, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Daniel Farina writes:
>>> Instead, I think it makes sense to assign a number -- arbitrarily, but
>>> uniquely -- to the generation of a new row in pg_stat_statements
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Sequences, as defined by SQL Standard, provide a series of unique
> values. The current implementation on PostgreSQL isolates the
> generation mechanism to only a single node, as is common on many
> RDBMS.
>
> For sharded or replicated systems
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:54 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 10/15/12 5:33 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> There are a few options
>> 1) Manual separation of the value space, so that N1 has 50% of
>> possible values and N2 has 50%. That has problems when we reconfigure
>> the cluster, and requires comp
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> Triggers necessarily operate on a row-at-a-time basis. In theory,
>>> for at least some bulk operations, a rule could greatly outperform
>>> a trigger. It's difficult to walk away from that - unless somebody
>>> can prove that the advan
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 10/17/2012 03:06 PM, Daniel Farina wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Andrew Dunstan
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Triggers necessarily operate on a row-at-a-time basis. In t
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/17/12 12:57 PM, Daniel Farina wrote:
>> I'll have to register my disagreement then, in the special case where
>> a feature becomes so obscure that many people don't have a wide-spread
>> intuition at what
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Daniel,
>
>> Unfortunately I myself see little evidence of the vast, vast --
>> several nines of vast -- majority of folks using rules, and as I said:
>> as a thought experiment, merely one solved bug is worth more to me
>> than rules from what
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Daniel, I assume you are submitting an updated version based on the
> feedback that has been provided. I will mark this patch returned with
> feedback in the current CF; please submit the next version to CF3.
Thank you for reminding me, so
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 10/17/2012 07:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm fairly annoyed by the entire tenor of this conversation, because
>> the people who are hollering the loudest seem to be people who have
>> never actually touched any of the rules code, bu
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 10/18/2012 01:11 PM, Daniel Farina wrote:
>
>> Here's another use case that in my history with RULES that didn't seem
>> to pan out so well: In my recollection, one way to use rules is to
>> reta
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Daniel,
>
>> I'm not going to disagree with that, I only feel it's reasonable to
>> ask why those who react so strongly against deprecation why they think
>> what they do, and receive a clinical response, because not everyone
>> has seen those
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen
wrote:
> For these reasons, I can imagine using "watch -n2 psql -c …", but not
> \watch in its present form. (Of course, I doubt anyone would be enthused
> about a proposal to link ncurses into psql, but that's another matter.)
A good point.
P
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> We could go even further:
> INFO: Server identity "ACME Debian Machine" certified by "Snakeoil CA"
> WARNING: Server identity signed by unknown and untrusted authority "Snakeoil
> CA"
> HINT: Add either the server certificate or the CA certific
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Daniel Farina wrote:
>>
>> An unrelated defect, although the patch tries to carefully clean up
>> the 'res' result from psqlexec in the error cases, it does forget to
>> do that, seemingly, in the 'positive'
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 8:22 AM, David Lee wrote:
> Thanks. Is this something viable as a feature request?
Just to contribute a tiny amount of data: I also get this request from
users on a semi-regular basis. It's definitely below the pains of
pg_dump/restore or fork-and-reuse-of-connections of l
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Btw, I believe that this is correct behavior, because in Peter's case the
> manual command gets the priority on the value of synchronous_commit, no?
> If anybody thinks that I am wrong, feel free to argue on that of course...
The idea of
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> I see why it is implemented this way, but it's also still pretty
>> unsatisfying because it means that with cancellation requests clients
>> are in theory able to commit an unlimited number of transactions,
>> synchronous commit or no.
>
> What
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 09:46 PM, Daniel Farina wrote:
>>
>> The bar for "reliable" non-volatile storage for me are things like
>> Amazon's S3, and I think a lot of that has to do with the otherwise
>> rela
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 2 November 2012 16:27, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> It would be. But you are not cancelling the commit, you are
>> *attempting* to cancel the commit. The message you receive explains
>> to what extend your attempt succeeded.
>
> That is correct.
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Daniel Farina:
>>> The idea of canceling a COMMIT statement causing a COMMIT seems pretty
>>> strange to me.
>>
>> Canceling commits is i
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Well, feel free to make a suggestion. We could have a mode where a
> commit, once initiated, is not user-cancellable, but that doesn't seem
> like a usability improvement to me. That just forces somebody to
> bounce the server in a situation w
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> During normal running, operations such as btree page splits are
> extremely careful about the order in which they acquire and release
> buffer locks, if they're doing something that concurrently modifies
> multiple pages.
>
> During WAL replay, tha
In the function "subquery_is_pushdown_safe", there is an immediate
"false" returned if the subquery has a windowing function. While that
seems true in general, are there cases where we can push down a qual
if it is on the partitioning key? Or do NULLs or some other detail
get in the way?
fdr
--
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> If you implement that optimization, we need have kind of
> implicit, homologous qual information. Sure, it's possible.
I'm not sure precisely what you mean here. Do you predict the
mechanism will be complicated? It's been a burning itch
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> I believe the changes will probably not be 2-3 lines (ie. a member
> added to Query structure, etc) if I try it. But the optimizer part is
> too complicated to me so that I am not sure, either. My idea above is
> that the similar mechanism
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The real question is what benefit you expect to get. If the filter
> condition can't be pushed below the window functions (which AFAICS
Even on the partition key?
Right now if you define a view with a windowing + PARTITION BY clause
in it and p
Hello List,
I'd like to share with you some experiences we've had while
investigating what we'd have to do to make very-very tiny databases.
First, the formulae at
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/kernel-resources.html#SHARED-MEMORY-PARAMETERS
(17-2) seem misleading, particularly with re
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> Can we indeed assume that all support-worthy filesystems align the start of
> every file to a physical sector? I know little about modern filesystem
> design, but these references leave me wary of that assumption:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 2:23 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Daniel Farina wrote:
>
>> Besides accuracy, there is a thornier problem here that has to do with
>> hot standby (although the use case is replication more generally) when
>> one h
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:51 PM, james wrote:
> I haven't tried quex, but I have tried lemon (which can be broken out of
> SQLite) and re2c and ragel.
>
> I like ragel and lemon, but the combination supports a push-parser style
> from memory, and many tools are inconvenient unless you are prepared
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Possibly. I have some fear of ending up with too many background
> processes, but we may need them.
I sort of care about this, but only on systems that are not very busy
and could otherwise get by with fewer resources -- for example, it'd
be n
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> I'm not sure I see the point in worrying about this at all. I mean, a
> process doing nothing does not waste much resources, does it? Other
> than keeping a PID that you can't use for other stuff.
Not much, but we do have an interest in ve
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Excerpts from Daniel Farina's message of jue may 03 17:04:03 -0400 2012:
>>> I sort of care about this, but only on systems that are not very busy
>>> and could otherwise get by with fewer resources -- for example, it'd
>
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Do we have a full list of externally defined open standards that we follow?
>
> Are there any known incompatibilities from externally defined open standards?
> (I know about the SQL standard stuff).
The documentation is misleading to the point
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 13 May 2012 18:07, Jeff Janes 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 f
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just read a very interesting post about "schema version management".
>
> Quote: "You could set it up so that every developer gets their own
> test database, sets up the schema there, takes a dump, and checks that
> in. There are go
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Daniel Farina wrote:
>> I think you are absolutely right, but I'm not sure if teaching pg_dump
>> a new option is the best idea. It's a pretty complex program as-is.
>>
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Brendan Jurd wrote:
> What we don't do is *output* the 'T', but this is pretty easy to
> workaround, e.g., to_char(now(), '-MM-DD"T"HH24:MI:SS'). The
> scope of actually wanting the 'T' is surely pretty minor?
>
> I'd be okay with just adding a note in the m
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Daniel Farina wrote:
>> Also, now that I look more carefully, there was a lot of conversation
>> about this patch; it seems like what you are doing now is reporting
>> its successf
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 22 May 2012 18:35, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>
>>> If I have a customer with 1 database per user, how do they run a query
>>> against 100 user tables? It would require 100 connections to the
>>> database. Doing that would require roughly x100 th
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> I'm not arguing that we don't have users who would like interdatabase
> queries, especially when they port applications from MySQL or MSSQL. We
> have a lot of such users. However, we *also* have a lot of users who
> would like to treat sepa
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> If one want to reuse the splitting to files-code of the directory
> format, maybe the existing option -F d could be tweaked to output in
> both a a machine-readable format (current way), and also a
> human-friendly tree of files and content (
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 2. Seeing that this is the first complaint since 9.0, should we decide
> that --disable-shared is no longer worth supporting? Seems like we
> should either make this case work or remove this switch. I notice
> that the switch isn't documented a
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> However, this doesn't help people configure shared buffers larger (e.g.
> 35%) if their working set is larger. Right now, I don't see how a user
> would know this is happening. On the flip side, they might have a
> smaller working set than
Hello list,
I have been playing with the URI connection strings in the bleeding
edge 9.2 and noticed an inconsistency with the old connection string
behavior:
$ psql 'host=/var/run/postgresql dbname=postgres arbitrary=property'
psql: invalid connection option "arbitrary"
(psql exits with an erro
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Daniel Farina writes:
>> I have been playing with the URI connection strings in the bleeding
>> edge 9.2 and noticed an inconsistency with the old connection string
>> behavior:
>
>> $ psql 'host=/var/run/p
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The main point here
> IMO is that libpq should have some way of telling parameters-for-the-
> server from things that are meant to be its own parameters.
I agree with this.
>> If that is the case, is there a convention we can use to separate the
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Daniel Farina writes:
>> Would these hypothetical extension-pairs be using the "options" device
>> at startup time, or something else (possibly brand new)?
>
> I'd argue for just translating them into "o
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Daniel Farina wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Daniel Farina writes:
>> If that is the case, is there a convention we can use to separate the
>>
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> However, not throwing errors on the URL syntax should be considered a
>> bug, I think.
>
> +1.
+1
Here's a patch that just makes the thing an error. Of course we could
revert it if it
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I am pleased to announce that Kevin Grittner has accepted the core
> committee's invitation to become our newest committer.
I have 99 problems, but this ain't one.[0]
[0]: This is a song reference.
--
fdr
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing lis
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 10 June 2012 19:47, Joshua Berkus wrote:
>
>> So currently we have a major limitation in binary replication, where it is
>> not possible to "remaster" your system (that is, designate the most
>> caught-up standby as the new master) based
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> Instead of using re-synchronization (e.g. repmgr in its relation to
>> rsync), I intend to proxy and also inspect the streaming replication
>> traffic and then quiesce all standbys and figure out what node is
>> farthest ahead. Once I figur
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> I agree that pg_backup_in_progress() is confusing, if it returns false while
>> you're running pg_basebackup. In the doc changes you proposed, you call the
>> pg_start/stop_backup() a "low level API" for taking backups. That's not
>> suita
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Daniel Farina wrote:
> Some time ago I reported bug 6291[0], which reported a Xid wraparound,
> both as reported in pg_controldata and by txid_current_snapshot.
> Unfortunately, nobody could reproduce it.
>
> Today, the same system of ours
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> * Size of field. 16 bits is enough for 32,000 master nodes, which is
>> quite a lot. Do we need that many? I think we may have need for a few
>> flag bits, so I'd like to reserve at least 4 bits for flag bits, maybe
>> 8 bits. Even if we do
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 6/26/12 2:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of mar jun 26 15:49:59 -0400 2012:
Robert, all:
Last I checked, we had a reasonably acce
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Daniel Farina wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 01:38 -0700, Daniel Farina wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Fuj
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Daniel Farina's message of mar jun 26 17:40:16 -0400 2012:
>
>> On that, I used to be of the opinion that this is a good compromise (a
>> small amount of interlock space, plus mostly posix shmem), but I've
>> heard since then
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> I've seen this at two sites now, and my conclusion is that a single
> autovacuum_max_workers isn't sufficient if to cover the case of
> wraparound vacuum. Nor can we just single-thread the wraparound vacuum
> (i.e. just one worker) since that
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have one nitpick related to the recent changes for
> pg_cancel_backend() and pg_terminate_backend(). If you use these
> functions as an unprivileged user, and try to signal a nonexistent
> PID, you get:
I think the goal ther
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> Anyway, it seems that no one other than you and I is very excited
>> about renaming this for whatever reason, so maybe we should leave it
>> at that.
>
> I think not changing the name is a really bad decision, and I am
> personally unhappy
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 28 June 2012 22:22, Daniel Farina wrote:
>> All in all, I don't think this can be a very productive discussion
>> unless someone just pitches a equal or better name overall in terms of
>> conciseness and de
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> In a *very* quick patch I tested using huge pages/MAP_HUGETLB for the mmap'ed
>> memory.
>> That gives around 9.5% performance benefit in a read-only pgbench run (-n -S
Hello,
I've noticed recently that I can't seem to use the convenient xlog
filename formatting functions while I'm in a standby. I don't see an
incredibly obvious reason why that is the case, so here's a patch that
simply removes the ban on being able to call these formatting
functions.
Perhaps I
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Daniel Farina wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've noticed recently that I can't seem to use the convenient xlog
> filename formatting functions while I'm in a standby. I don't see an
> incredibly obvious reason why that is the case, so h
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 3, 2012, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Amit Kapila
>>> wrote:
>>> >>(added to commitfest:
>>> >> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I think our big gap is in integrating these sections. There is no easy
> way for a bug reporter to find out what happens to his report unless the
> patch is applied in the same email thread as the report. It is hard for
> users to see _all_
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Shaun Thomas wrote:
>
> 1. Slave wants to be synchronous with master. Master wants replication on at
> least one slave. They have this, and are happy.
> 2. For whatever reason, slave crashes or becomes unavailable.
> 3. Master notices no more slaves are available,
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Shaun Thomas wrote:
> On 07/10/2012 01:11 AM, Daniel Farina wrote:
>
>> So if I get this straight, what you are saying is "be asynchronous
>> replication unless someone is around, in which case be synchronous"
>> is the mode you
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
wrote:>
> What you explain you want reads to me "Async replication + Archiving".
Notable caveat: one can't very easily measure or bound the amount of
transaction loss in any graceful way as-is. We only have "unlimited
lag" and "2-safe or bust".
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
wrote:
> Daniel Farina writes:
>> Notable caveat: one can't very easily measure or bound the amount of
>> transaction loss in any graceful way as-is. We only have "unlimited
>> lag" and "2-safe or b
201 - 300 of 434 matches
Mail list logo
