e of 9.2.4, but have noticed a
few situations where it's a little slower than we might like, but these
instances are rare. I'd accept a small performance hit if we can get better
reliability and awareness of potential problems.
Thanks,
Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgs
o the list...
--Kevin
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Hi,
I want to extend the catalog, i think the key is
pg_attribute.h, pg_class.h, pg_type.h
is it enough:
1. add pg_xxx.h
2.modify pg_attribute.h, pg_class.h, pg_type.h, catname.h,
indexing.h, indexing.c, Makefile
i tried once, it was ok when target to template. but like a mess
when target
current ODBC driver doesn't support
bulk copy and libpq doesn't support Bind/Define. What should I be
using, and will I have to develop this functionality for one of these
interfaces?
--Kevin
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you c
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 26 February 2016 at 22:48, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> if we want logical
>> replication to be free of serialization anomalies for those using
>> serializable transactions, we need to support applying transactions
>
this an implementation of some particular formal technique? If
so, do you have a reference to a paper on it? I get the sense that
there has been a lot written about distributed transactions, and
that it would be a mistake to ignore it, but I have not (yet)
reviewed the literature for it.
--
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 27 February 2016 at 17:54, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>
>> On a single database SSI can see whether a read has
>> caused such a problem. If you replicate the transactions to
>> somewhere else and read them SSI cann
ne. I haven't been able to see the
right way to get a TAP test to set up a customized installation to
run isolation tests against. If I can get that working, I have
additional tests I can drop into that.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
snap
y "9.7-first" or
>>> something like that rather than just plain "future", to make it
>>> more clear.
>>
>> +1 to both names suggested by Magnus.
>
> We do need to pick one of them :)
>
> Anybody else with preferences?
I would prefer to s
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> 2016-09 has been created then:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/
> People, feel free to park future patches there.
I think that should be in status "open" rather than "future".
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2016-02-29 18:30:27 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> Basically, a connection needs to remain open and interleave
>>> commands with other connections,
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:10 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 28 February 2016 at 06:38, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> What I sketched out with the "apparent order of execution"
>> ordering of the transactions (basically, commit order except
>> when one SERIALIZABLE tra
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 5 March 2016 at 23:41, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> The only place you *need* to vary from commit order for correctness
>> is when there are overlapping SERIALIZABLE transactions, one
>> modifies data and commits, and
ient problem.
That's a nice feature to have, but I'm hard put to see where lack
of that feature constitutes a bug.
> I'd also like to see some theory in comments and an explanation
> of why we're doing this (code).
A reference to the 2007 VLDB paper would not be amiss th
on failures when such detail is
available, so that people can tune their transactions to minimize
such retries. IMO we should see whether we can provide table/key
in the error detail for this sort of serialization failure.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQ
o separate views I think that there will be a
lot of effort put into views to present the UNION of them, probably
with weird corner cases and race conditions. A single view can
probably better manage race conditions, and a WHERE clause is not
as tricky for the DBA and/or end user.
--
Kevin Grit
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'd also be interested in hearing Kevin Grittner's thoughts about
> serializability in a distributed environment, since he's obviously
> thought about the topic of serializability quite a bit.
I haven't
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Chapman Flack writes:
>> On 03/17/16 17:29, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> A grep with a quick skim of the results to exclude references to
>>> particular people who are mentioned by name and then referred to
>>> w
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Note that since multiple lines with gender-specific pronouns
> sometimes are near each other and thus show up in the same block,
> there are 59 blocks in 42 files.
Adding two more pronouns I noticed in a closer scan of th
New patch just to merge in recent commits -- it was starting to
show some bit-rot. Tests folded in with main patch.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
snapshot-too-old-v5.patch
Description: invalid/octet-stream
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
about 70 lines in the 1346667 line C code base that need work.
Any word-smiths out there who want to volunteer to sort this out?
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
n one new contributor who would do
this without causing any new feature to slip from the next release.
;-)
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscript
not entirely sure I understand the terminology either, since I
tend to think of a *point* as having *zero* dimensions. Would it
perhaps be more accurate to say we are treating a 2-dimensional box
as a point in 4-dimensional space?
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postg
Thanks to all for the feedback; I will try to respond later this
week. First I'm trying to get my reviews for other patches posted.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.or
wants to comment on the issues where
Tom and Kyotaro-san still seem unsatisfied to the point where I
can get my head around it, I could maybe take it back on as
committer -- if anyone feels that could be a net win.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQ
son to do so.
>
> U, I'm a bit confused. Which condition?
Yeah, any additional discussion about areas which anyone sees as
open or still needing attention might allow me to get enough
traction to wrap this; I'm having trouble seeing what the pending
issues are where both Tom and
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:58 AM, David Steele wrote:
> We're getting to the end of the CF now. Do you know when you'll have an
> updated patch ready?
I am working on it right now. Hopefully I can get it all sorted today.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.co
that regard.
> I think it might be time to bounce this one to 9.7.
If there is a consensus for that, sure, or if I can't sort out the
latest issues by feature freeze (which is admittedly looming).
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
ed for configuration.
old_snapshot_threshold = -1 (the default) completely disables the
new behavior, and I basically abused a configuration setting of 0
to mean a few seconds so I could get some basic testing added to
make check-world while keeping the additional time for the tests
(barely) below o
al vacuum will allow that, as you should
see on your monitoring window. A connection should not get the
error just because it is using a snapshot that tries to look at
data that might be wrong, and the connection holding the long-lived
snapshot doesn't do that until it awakes from the sleep and ru
erabilities of this type. If you see such after looking at
the patch, let me know.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postg
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> A connection should not get the
> error just because it is using a snapshot that tries to look at
> data that might be wrong, and the connection holding the long-lived
> snapshot doesn't do that until it awakes from t
rvations about the
> aforementioned problem.
We have a lot of places in our code where people need to know
things that they are not reminded of by the surrounding code, but
I'm not about to argue that's a good thing; if the consensus is
that this would help prevent futu
st
+ * log at DEBUG level and return without doing anything.
+ */
I'm not clear that more drastic action is a good idea, since the
"fallback" is existing behavior. I fear that doing something more
aggressive might force other logic to become more precise about
aggressive clean
or me.
> (FWIW, I think you probably wanted ,+ not ,* in the regex, else there's
> practically no constraint there, leading to having to consider O(N^2)
> or more possibilities.)
On master (commit cf7dfbf2) it responds to pg_cancel_backend(),
but it seems to be in
we could either skip
these if there is an error, or not even try to build them at all.
Either seems better than the status quo.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make chan
a large NUMA machine with
4 or more memory nodes, on Linux kernels both before and after 3.8,
to make sure that the effects are at least neutral.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On January 18, 2016 10:42:42 PM GMT+01:00, Kevin Grittner
> wrote:
>> I took a look at this and agree that the shorter, simpler code
>> proposed in this patch should make no *logical* difference, and
>> looks
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> It's hard to understand quite what you're saying there. If you're
>> saying that code changes that should be performance neutral can
>> som
nt. I don't think we should accept the patch
*in the absence* of benchmarking to show a result that is neutral
or better. Spinlocks are just too performance-critical and too
fussy to accept a change on the basis that "the source code looks
fine". IMO, anyway.
--
Kevin Grittner
can't overcome the limitations of the "standard" or your
development framework any other way, you plan sounds like the next
best thing.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql
.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/functions-trigger.html
A better solution, where possible, is to use the WHERE clause to
avoid the update attempt where the new values are not distinct from
the old ones.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
ou, plus a couple other MV tab
completion issues I found in testing these patches.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I will push something shortly with the
> improvements from both of you, plus a couple other MV tab
> completion issues I found in testing these patches.
Done.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise P
If you write a transaction so that it does the right thing when
run alone, it will always do the right thing as part of any mix of
serializable transactions or will fail with a serialization failure
error."
Right now we have to add:
"... or, er, maybe a duplicate key error."
--
Kevin
to me to be outright inaccurate
for cases where the system time on the various systems is used.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http
Heikki (who was the
main committer for this feature) added SLRU buffer flushing for it
on checkpoint and took out the startup delete code with the
explanation that he thought someone might want to look at the file
contents for debugging purposes. I would be a bit surprised if
anyone
he block of duplicate values and scanning to the right for a
block with space, with a random chance to split a full block on
each page it moves through?
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@po
it just came to mind because of this discussion.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
o be replayed before
the write it didn't see, regardless of commit order. If you're not
trying to avoid serialization anomalies, it is less clear to me
what is best.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing li
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2016 05:43, "Kevin Grittner" wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>>> it seems to me that
>>> this is just one facet of a much more general problem: given t
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> Could you provide an example of a case where xacts replayed in
>> commit order will produce incorrect results?
>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SSI#Deposit
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2016 20:10, "Kevin Grittner" wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Craig Ringer
>>> Could you provide an example of a case where xacts replayed in
>>> commit order
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> On 23 Aug 2016 20:10, "Kevin Grittner" wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Craig Ringer
>
>>>> Could you provide an e
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> On 23 Aug 2016 20:10, "Kevin Grittner" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 2
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-08-23 07:26:31 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Craig Ringer
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> Could
t that's
a different issue.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Modify BufferGetPage() to prepare for "snapshot too old" feature
>
> I just noticed that this commit added a line to #include catalog/catalog.h
> in storage/bufmgr.h. I can't find
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> #include catalog/catalog.h in storage/bufmgr.h.
>> Can we get it removed?
>
> Will do that now.
Done. Back-patched to 9.6 (although I see I forgo
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Add the "snapshot too old" feature
>
>> src/backend/access/gin/ginbtree.c | 9 +-
>> src/backend/access/gin/gindatapage.c | 7 +-
t; commit, because it easily shows me in what
> places you considered a snapshot-too-old test and decided not to add
> one. Bare BufferGetPage calls (the current situation) don't indicate that.
I'm glad there is some value from having done that little dance. :-)
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm wondering about the TestForOldSnapshot call in scanPendingInsert().
>> > Why do we apply it
hing the index
buffers, due to the need to check each one against the WAL flush
point, where we now skip that check.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to you
aseMetaData dbmd = con.getMetaData();
System.out.println(dbmd.getDatabaseMajorVersion() + " " +
dbmd.getDatabaseMinorVersion());
con.close();
}
}
... outputs this:
9 6
I'm not sure what the right thing to do is here.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The E
s of the documentation,
like MVCC, vacuuming, pg_stat_activity, etc.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 1:02 PM, David Fetter wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 02:41:42PM +, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>
>>>> [ideas on how to pass around references to ephemeral relations]
>>>
ightly.
Pushed, with an adjustment to handle SET TRANSACTION SNAPSHOT, too.
Thanks!
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www
BY clause. How hard is it to add
ORDER BY 1, 2 to the above query? Let the optimizer notice when a
node returns data in the needed order and skip the sort if possible.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pg
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-09-02 09:05:35 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>>>> =# SELECT * FRO
er by to get the old behavior.
I'm apparently missing something, because I see a column with the
header "generate_series" in the result set.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@
een made to the
database (including no vacuum activity, auto- or otherwise). If
someone reported that as a bug, what would we tell them?
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-09-02 09:41:28 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Andres Freund writes:
>> >> Oh, and we've previously re-added
ould test if we always specified
an order.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kevin Grittner writes:
>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> regression=# select *, generate_series(1,3) from int8_tbl;
>
>> I'm sure that you realize that running a query of that form twice
&
necessary. I'll get to
> that next week.
I changed the CF entry to "Waiting on Author" pending that. (I was
starting to review the patch for commit, so it's none to early to
mention that the last posted version is not what I should be
looking at.)
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> I changed the CF entry to "Waiting on Author" pending that. (I was
>> starting to review the patch for commit, so it's none to early to
>> men
static inline (in the .h files) to
avoid double-evaluation hazards? They might perform as well or
even better that way, and remove a subtle programmer foot-gun.
Changing status to "Waiting on Author".
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Comp
ions
> are better suited, I can rework the patches.
I suspect that they will be as fast or faster, and they eliminate
the hazard of multiple evaluation, where a programmer might not be
aware of the multiple evaluation or of some side-effect of an
argument.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterpr
v6 fixes recently-introduced bit-rot.
Kevin Grittner
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I have merged in the changes since v4 (a year and a half ago) and
> cured all bit-rot I found, to get the attached v5 which runs `make
> check world` without problem -- incl
Opinions on whether this is a bug or correct behavior?
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
.
Also, for future reference, please try to use white-space that
matches surrounding code -- it make scanning through code less
"jarring".
Thanks all for the patch and the reviews!
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-h
ion on the user.
That seems sane to me, because the attempt to actually execute with
that object gives a potentially useful error message. Anyway, I
tend to like symmetry in these things -- it could also be
considered sane not to show t2 on tab completion fro bob above, but
then we should probably a
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kevin Grittner writes:
>> But that gives incorrect results for the case I asked about earlier
>> on the thread, while the query I pushed gives correct results:
>
> AFAICS, my query gives correct results for that case. bob i
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The query you committed is flat wrong, because it doesn't
>> account for database ownership being granted via role membership.
>
> Ah, there was a flaw in my te
make sense
to deal with the ACL ordering hack in one of these patches, or
should that be left for later?
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscrip
better, and this doesn't get us
to the point where that's immediately possible; but with a cleaner
API it should be easier to get there, so this is a step along the
way.
Setting to Ready for Committer.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Emre Hasegeli wrote:
> These patches apply and build on top of 5c609a74 with no problems,
> but `make check` finds differences per the attached. Please
> investigate why the regression tests
for min()/max(), etc.]
>> I suspect that they will be as fast or faster, and they eliminate
>> the hazard of multiple evaluation, where a programmer might not be
>> aware of the multiple evaluation or of some side-effect of an
>> argument.
>
> I reworked the the patch
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Will take a look and post again.
I am moving this patch to the next CF. You'll be hearing from me
sometime after this CF is closed.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
s to chart a course somewhere in
the middle:
http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Whichvs.That.html
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
t least* that old. Keep in mind that the expected
useful values for this parameter are from a small number of hours
to a day or two, depending on the workload. The emphasis was on
minimizing overhead, even when it meant the cleanup might not be
quite as "eager" as it could otherwise be.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
dest excuses for documentation I've ever seen,
> because it doesn't explain WHY either of those conditions require a VACUUM
> interlock, and certainly it's not immediately obvious why they should.
> "git blame" pins the blame for this text on Kevin, so I'm goi
s to behave
consistently, but I have not been able to spot where, if anywhere,
that would be.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
The setting will be coerced to a
| granularity of minutes, and small numbers (such as 0 or 1min) are
| only allowed because they may sometimes be useful for testing.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:08:28AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>> Slide 10 of this presentation has an example showing
>>> ol
_class often matches the filename, that is not
true after some operations (like CLUSTER or VACUUM FULL). It is
the relfilenode column that is the definitive link to the file.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (p
d to think about and discuss this a bit more before
we can be sure of the best fix. This is probably not thread on
which to have that discussion.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 11:20 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> v6 fixes recently-introduced bit-rot.
>
> Not as big as I thought, only 2k when both patches are combined... The
> patch without noapi in its name needs to be
On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> SPI support would also
> allow us to consider using set logic for validating foreign keys,
> instead of the one-row-at-a-time approach currently used.
Just as a proof of concept for this I used the attached test case
to creat
Attached is a minor fix to go on top of transition-tsr for issues
found yesterday in testing.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
diff --git a/src/backend/optimizer/path/costsize.c
b/src/backend/optimizer/path/costsize.c
index 53bfd4b..2da841e
1 - 100 of 4332 matches
Mail list logo
