Re: [HACKERS] Memory leak in GIN index build

2016-04-19 Thread Marc Cousin
I had the possibility to perform tests on 9.5, and can confirm the memory leak I was seeing is solved with the patch (and that's great :) ) Regards Marc On 18/04/2016 17:53, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > On 18/04/2016 16:33, Tom Lane wrote: >> I poked at this over the weekend, and got more unhappy

Re: [HACKERS] star schema and the optimizer

2015-02-28 Thread Marc Cousin
On 27/02/2015 20:01, Marc Cousin wrote: On 27/02/2015 19:45, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: I had actually thought that we'd fixed this type of problem in recent versions, and that you should be able to get a plan that would look like Nestloop - scan dim1 - Nestloop - scan dim2

Re: [HACKERS] star schema and the optimizer

2015-02-27 Thread Marc Cousin
On 27/02/2015 15:08, Tom Lane wrote: Marc Cousin cousinm...@gmail.com writes: So I gave a look at the optimizer's code to try to understand why I got this problem. If I understand correctly, the optimizer won't do cross joins, except if it has no choice. That's right, and as you say

Re: [HACKERS] star schema and the optimizer

2015-02-27 Thread Marc Cousin
On 27/02/2015 19:45, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: I had actually thought that we'd fixed this type of problem in recent versions, and that you should be able to get a plan that would look like Nestloop - scan dim1 - Nestloop - scan dim2 - indexscan fact table using dim1.a

Re: [HACKERS] star schema and the optimizer

2015-02-27 Thread Marc Cousin
On 27/02/2015 15:27, Marc Cousin wrote: On 27/02/2015 15:08, Tom Lane wrote: Marc Cousin cousinm...@gmail.com writes: So I gave a look at the optimizer's code to try to understand why I got this problem. If I understand correctly, the optimizer won't do cross joins, except if it has

[HACKERS] star schema and the optimizer

2015-02-27 Thread Marc Cousin
Hi all, I've been facing an issue with star schemas for a while. PostgreSQL's performance is not that good without rewriting the query (or at least I couldn't find a way to make it do what I want). Here is a very basic mockup schema I used for the rest of this mail. It's of course too small

Re: [HACKERS] segfault with contrib lo

2013-10-08 Thread Marc Cousin
On Tuesday 08 October 2013 12:28:46 Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Marc Cousin cousinm...@gmail.com wrote: I was using the lo contrib a few days ago and wasn't paying attention, and forgot the for each row in the create trigger command... PostgreSQL segfaulted, when

[HACKERS] segfault with contrib lo

2013-10-07 Thread Marc Cousin
I was using the lo contrib a few days ago and wasn't paying attention, and forgot the for each row in the create trigger command... PostgreSQL segfaulted, when the trigger tried to access the row's attributes. Please find attached a patch to control that the trigger is correctly defined (as in

Re: [HACKERS] Performance problem in PLPgSQL

2013-08-25 Thread Marc Cousin
On 24/08/2013 21:16, Tom Lane wrote: Marc Cousin cousinm...@gmail.com writes: On 23/08/2013 23:55, Tom Lane wrote: My previous suggestion was to estimate planning cost as 10 * (length(plan-rangetable) + 1) but on reflection it ought to be scaled by one of the cpu cost constants, so perhaps

Re: [HACKERS] Performance problem in PLPgSQL

2013-08-24 Thread Marc Cousin
On 23/08/2013 23:55, Tom Lane wrote: Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes: please, can you send a self explained test this issue should be fixed, and we need a examples. We already had a perfectly good example at the beginning of this thread. What's missing is a decision on how we

[HACKERS] Performance problem in PLPgSQL

2013-07-23 Thread Marc Cousin
Hi, I've been trying to diagnose a severe performance regression we've been having in one of our plpgsql procedures. The example below is of course extremely simplified, and obviously not what we are really doing in the database, but it exhibits the slowdown between 9.1.9 and 9.2.4. So here is

[HACKERS] Problem with background worker

2013-03-20 Thread Marc Cousin
Hi, I'm trying to write a background writer, and I'm facing a problem with timestamps. The following code is where I'm having a problem (it's just a demo for the problem): BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnection(test, NULL); while (!got_sigterm) { int ret; /* Wait 1s */ ret

Re: [HACKERS] Problem with background worker

2013-03-20 Thread Marc Cousin
On 20/03/2013 16:33, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Marc Cousin escribió: Hi, I'm trying to write a background writer, and I'm facing a problem with timestamps. The following code is where I'm having a problem (it's just a demo for the problem): BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnection(test, NULL); while

[HACKERS] small bug on 3-digit years in 9.2-dev

2012-07-02 Thread Marc Cousin
Hi, While working on the What's new in 9.2, I think I found a small bug: SELECT to_date('519-07-02','YYY-MM-DD'); to_date 0519-07-02 (1 row) It comes, I think, from the year 519 case not being handled in the following code. Patch attached + if (year 70) +

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework

2012-04-23 Thread Marc Cousin
On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 10:53 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: 2012-04-10 09:02 keltezéssel, Boszormenyi Zoltan írta: 2012-04-06 14:47 keltezéssel, Cousin Marc írta: On 05/04/12 08:02, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: 2012-04-04 21:30 keltezéssel, Alvaro Herrera írta: I think this patch is doing

[HACKERS] Review for EXPLAIN and nfiltered

2011-09-19 Thread Marc Cousin
Here is my review for EXPLAIN and nfiltered (http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4e6e9e83.7070...@2ndquadrant.com) - Is the patch in context diff format? It's in git diff format - Does it apply cleanly to the current git master? Yes - Does it include reasonable tests, necessary doc

Re: [HACKERS] Review for EXPLAIN and nfiltered

2011-09-19 Thread Marc Cousin
2011/9/19 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com: On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Marc Cousin cousinm...@gmail.com wrote: Here is my review for EXPLAIN and nfiltered (http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4e6e9e83.7070...@2ndquadrant.com) Please add this review to the CommitFest app here

[HACKERS] Review: rollback sequence reset for TRUNCATE ... RESTART IDENTITY

2010-11-17 Thread Marc Cousin
Hi, Here is my review of 'rollback sequence reset for TRUNCATE ... RESTART IDENTITY' patch. - Is the patch in context diff format? It's in git diff format. I guess it's OK ? - Does it apply cleanly to the current git master? Yes - Does it include reasonable tests, necessary doc patches, etc?

Re: [HACKERS] Review: rollback sequence reset for TRUNCATE ... RESTART IDENTITY

2010-11-17 Thread Marc Cousin
The Wednesday 17 November 2010 15:50:36, Jaime Casanova wrote : On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Marc Cousin cousinm...@gmail.com wrote: - Does the feature work as advertised? Yes. It works consistently, isn't fooled by savepoints or multiple serials in a table, or concurrent

Re: [HACKERS] Review: rollback sequence reset for TRUNCATE ... RESTART IDENTITY

2010-11-17 Thread Marc Cousin
The Wednesday 17 November 2010 19:41:19, Tom Lane wrote : Marc Cousin cousinm...@gmail.com writes: - Does the feature work as advertised? Yes. It works consistently, isn't fooled by savepoints or multiple serials in a table, or concurrent transactions I think there's a rather nasty

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC][PATCH]: CRC32 is limiting at COPY/CTAS/INSERT ... SELECT + speeding it up

2010-11-03 Thread Marc Cousin
The Saturday 30 October 2010 11:05:17, Andres Freund wrote : Hi, This thread died after me not implementing a new version and some potential license problems. I still think its worthwile (and I used it in production for some time) so I would like to implement a version fit for the next

Re: [HACKERS] lock_timeout GUC patch - Review

2010-08-02 Thread Marc Cousin
The Monday 02 August 2010 13:59:59, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote : Also, I made sure that only one or two timeout causes (one of deadlock_timeout and lock_timeout in the first case or statement_timeout plus one of the other two) can be active at a time. A little clarification is needed.

Re: [HACKERS] lock_timeout GUC patch - Review

2010-07-30 Thread Marc Cousin
The Thursday 29 July 2010 13:55:38, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote : I fixed this by adding CheckLockTimeout() function that works like CheckStatementTimeout() and ensuring that the same start time is used for both deadlock_timeout and lock_timeout if both are active. The preference of errors if

Re: [HACKERS] lock_timeout GUC patch - Review

2010-07-20 Thread Marc Cousin
Hi, I've been reviewing this patch for the last few days. Here it is : * Submission review * Is the patch in context diff format? Yes * Does it apply cleanly to the current CVS HEAD? Yes * Does it include reasonable tests, necessary doc patches, etc? Doc patches are there. There are no

Re: [HACKERS] TRUNCATE+COPY optimization and --jobs=1 in pg_restore

2010-07-06 Thread Marc Cousin
2010/2/10 Takahiro Itagaki itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Takahiro Itagaki itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp writes: We have an optimization to bulkload date in pg_restore, but the code only works in parallel restore (--jobs = 2). Why don't we do the

Re: [HACKERS] Cached Query Plans (was: global prepared statements)

2008-04-13 Thread Marc Cousin
Another issue with plan caches, besides contention, in Oracle at least, is shared memory fragmentation (as plans aren't all the same size in memory ...) But this cache is very helpful for developments where every query is done via prepare/execute/deallocate. I've seen it a lot on java apps, the