On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-12-22 20:45:02 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I suspect we ought to extend this to rewriting variants of ALTER TABLE
as well, but a little thought is needed there. ATRewriteTables()
appears to just call
On 2013-12-22 20:45:02 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I suspect we ought to extend this to rewriting variants of ALTER TABLE
as well, but a little thought is needed there. ATRewriteTables()
appears to just call heap_insert() for each updated row, which if I'm
not mistaken is an MVCC violation -
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 18:24 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-11-19 12:23:30 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Yes, we probably should make a
On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 18:24 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-11-19 12:23:30 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Yes, we probably should make a decision, unless Robert's idea can be
implemented. We have to balance
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:35 PM, David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that the patch should include some sort of notes in the documents
to say that cluster performs freezing of tuples. I've attached a patch
which adds something there, but I'm not 100% sure it is the right thing.
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Thomas Munro mu...@ip9.org wrote:
On 25 October 2013 01:17, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 10/24/2013 04:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
I wonder if we should go so far as to make this the default behavior,
instead of just making it an option.
+1 from
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Yes, we probably should make a decision, unless Robert's idea can be
implemented. We have to balance the ease of debugging MVCC failures
with the interface we give to the user community.
Imo that patch really
On 2013-11-19 12:23:30 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Yes, we probably should make a decision, unless Robert's idea can be
implemented. We have to balance the ease of debugging MVCC failures
with the interface we
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
On 2013-10-25 09:26:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
In any case, it's very far from obvious to me that CLUSTER ought
to throw away information by default, which is what you're proposing.
I find it odd to referring
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 09:22:58PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
So now I'm wondering what the next move should be for this patch?
a. Are we waiting on Robert's patch to be committed before we can apply
Thomas's
cluster with freeze as default?
b. Are we waiting on me reviewing one or both of
On 2013-11-18 11:39:44 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 09:22:58PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
So now I'm wondering what the next move should be for this patch?
a. Are we waiting on Robert's patch to be committed before we can apply
Thomas's
cluster with freeze as
On 11/18/2013 08:39 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
If we do add FREEZE, all we would be doing is delaying the time when all
CLUSTER operations will use FREEZE, and hence debugging will be just as
difficult. My point is that will full knowledge, everyone would use
FREEZE unless they expect MVCC
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 11/18/2013 08:39 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
If we do add FREEZE, all we would be doing is delaying the time
when all CLUSTER operations will use FREEZE, and hence debugging
will be just as difficult. My point is that will full
knowledge, everyone would
On 2013-10-25 09:26:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
In any case, it's very far from obvious to me that CLUSTER ought
to throw away information by default, which is what you're proposing.
I find it odd to referring to this as throwing away information. I
know that you have a general concern
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-10-25 09:26:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
In any case, it's very far from obvious to me that CLUSTER ought
to throw away information by default, which is what you're proposing.
I find it odd to referring to
On 2013-10-29 11:29:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2013-10-25 09:26:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
In any case, it's very far from obvious to me that CLUSTER ought
to throw away information by default, which is
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-10-29 11:29:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2013-10-25 09:26:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
In any case, it's very far from
On 10/26/2013 01:20 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 10/24/2013 07:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
In any case, it's very far from obvious to me that CLUSTER ought
to throw away information by default, which is what you're proposing.
The problem here is that you're thinking of the 1/10 of 1% of our users
On 2013-10-24 17:17:22 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 10/24/2013 04:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 10/23/2013 09:58 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I wonder why anyone would like to freeze during CLUSTER command when
they already
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-10-24 17:17:22 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 10/24/2013 04:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 10/23/2013 09:58 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I wonder
On 2013-10-25 09:13:20 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-10-24 17:17:22 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 10/24/2013 04:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I wonder if we should go so far as to make this the default behavior,
instead of just making it an option.
In that case you'd have to invent a NOFREEZE keyword, no? Ick.
Only if we
On 10/24/2013 07:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
In any case, it's very far from obvious to me that CLUSTER ought
to throw away information by default, which is what you're proposing.
The problem here is that you're thinking of the 1/10 of 1% of our users
who have a serious PostgreSQL failure and post
On 25 October 2013 01:17, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 10/24/2013 04:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
I wonder if we should go so far as to make this the default behavior,
instead of just making it an option.
+1 from me. Can you think of a reason you *wouldn't* want to freeze?
Ok, I
On 24 October 2013 05:58, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Thomas Munro mu...@ip9.org wrote:
Hi
I noticed that CLUSTER doesn't have a FREEZE option. Here is a patch to add
that, for consistency with VACUUM. Is it useful?
I wonder why anyone would
Hi,
On 2013-10-24 00:28:44 +0100, Thomas Munro wrote:
I noticed that CLUSTER doesn't have a FREEZE option. Here is a patch to
add that, for consistency with VACUUM. Is it useful?
I think you'd need to prevent that form from working on system catalogs
- xmin has a meaning there sometimes
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:28:43AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Thomas Munro mu...@ip9.org wrote:
Hi
I noticed that CLUSTER doesn't have a FREEZE option. Here is a patch to add
that, for consistency with VACUUM. Is it useful?
I wonder why anyone would like
On 10/23/2013 09:58 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I wonder why anyone would like to freeze during CLUSTER command when
they already have separate way (VACUUM FREEZE) to achieve it, do you
know or can think of any case where user wants to do it along with
Cluster command?
If I'm rewriting the table
On 24 October 2013 05:58, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Thomas Munro mu...@ip9.org wrote:
Hi
I noticed that CLUSTER doesn't have a FREEZE option. Here is a patch to
add
that, for consistency with VACUUM. Is it useful?
I wonder why anyone
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 10/23/2013 09:58 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I wonder why anyone would like to freeze during CLUSTER command when
they already have separate way (VACUUM FREEZE) to achieve it, do you
know or can think of any case where user
On 10/24/2013 04:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 10/23/2013 09:58 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I wonder why anyone would like to freeze during CLUSTER command when
they already have separate way (VACUUM FREEZE) to achieve it, do you
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I wonder if we should go so far as to make this the default behavior,
instead of just making it an option.
In that case you'd have to invent a NOFREEZE keyword, no? Ick.
In any case, it's very far from obvious to me that CLUSTER ought
to throw away
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 10/23/2013 09:58 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I wonder why anyone would like to freeze during CLUSTER command when
they already have separate way (VACUUM FREEZE) to achieve it, do you
know or can think of any case where user
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Thomas Munro mu...@ip9.org wrote:
On 24 October 2013 05:58, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Thomas Munro mu...@ip9.org wrote:
Hi
I noticed that CLUSTER doesn't have a FREEZE option. Here is a patch to
add
Hi
I noticed that CLUSTER doesn't have a FREEZE option. Here is a patch to
add that, for consistency with VACUUM. Is it useful?
Thanks
Thomas Munro
cluster-freeze.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Thomas Munro mu...@ip9.org wrote:
Hi
I noticed that CLUSTER doesn't have a FREEZE option. Here is a patch to add
that, for consistency with VACUUM. Is it useful?
I wonder why anyone would like to freeze during CLUSTER command when
they already have separate
36 matches
Mail list logo
