On 7/6/10 8:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
It might be that nobody's using any values other than 0 and -1 ...
in which case it wouldn't matter anyway. I agree that the lack of
bug reports is notable. But still, don't we try to avoid behavioral
changes in stable branches?
I think most people are
2010/7/8 Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com:
On 7/6/10 8:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
It might be that nobody's using any values other than 0 and -1 ...
in which case it wouldn't matter anyway. I agree that the lack of
bug reports is notable. But still, don't we try to avoid behavioral
changes in
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Shouldn't this be backpatched, or was this a new bug in 9.0?
We've always output bytes. I'd have noticed the discrepancy myself if I'd
read the actual docs ;-)
KB would be more useful. And I don't think people have
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
log_temp_files was introduced in 8.3, so we'll need to backpatch this
to 8.3, not just 8.4. Greg Smith tells me Simon has been busy with
other things, so I'm going to pick this up. Barring objections, I'm
going to revert Simon's patch and change the
Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Shouldn't this be backpatched, or was this a new bug in 9.0?
We've always output bytes. I'd have noticed the discrepancy myself if I'd
read the actual docs ;-)
KB would be more useful. And I
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
log_temp_files was introduced in 8.3, so we'll need to backpatch this
to 8.3, not just 8.4. Greg Smith tells me Simon has been busy with
other things, so I'm going to pick this up.
Robert Haas wrote:
I think my least favorite option is changing the behavior only in
HEAD. I think the reasonable options are:
1. Change the behavior in HEAD, 8.4, and 8.3, per previous discussion.
If we do this, we should do what I proposed in my previous email.
2. Change the comments
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
I think my least favorite option is changing the behavior only in
HEAD. I think the reasonable options are:
1. Change the behavior in HEAD, 8.4, and 8.3, per previous discussion.
If we do this, we
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
The reason I think it's OK to change the behavior in the back-branches
is that (a) the only thing it affects is logging, so it shouldn't
really break anything, and (b) apparently nobody has noticed that
the interpretation of the GUC is off by three
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Anything backpatched risks causing instability, and might discourage
people from performing minor upgrades. Minor fixes are rarely worth the
risk of causing instability in
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Anything backpatched risks causing instability, and might discourage
people from performing minor upgrades.
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Changing the unit setting would also be a behavioral change. I think
what Bruce is suggesting is that this is simply not worth worrying about
in the back branches.
It seems pretty
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
without any field complaints,
I refer you to Simon's original commit message: Bug found during
recent performance tuning for PostgreSQL user.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Changing the unit setting would also be a behavioral change. I think
what Bruce is suggesting is that this is
Robert Haas wrote:
OK, so I talked to Bruce about this and I guess I've been persuaded
that we should just apply the patch I sent upthread to HEAD and leave
the back-branches broken, for fear of creating an incompatibility.
The only thing that might be appropriate to backport is the docs
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
OK, so I talked to Bruce about this and I guess I've been persuaded
that we should just apply the patch I sent upthread to HEAD and leave
the back-branches broken, for fear of creating an
Robert Haas wrote:
Bruce felt it wasn't worth putting that amount of work into backbranch docs
that nobody's likely to read
anyway, but I suppose that view could be overruled if there's a strong
consensus.
I was never arguing in favor of touching anything in the back branches;
if you
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I was never arguing in favor of touching anything in the back branches; if
you recall I didn't even voice an opinion here until I got concerned about
too many changes happening in them. I think a proper fix in 9.0 combined
On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 10:56 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Shouldn't this be backpatched, or was this a new bug in 9.0?
We've always output bytes. I'd have noticed the discrepancy myself if
I'd read the actual docs ;-)
We can still output bytes, no problem. The issue is that the parameter
is
On 25/06/10 16:11, Simon Riggs wrote:
Log Message:
---
Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
stat(2) field st_size returns bytes not kilobytes.
Bug found during recent performance tuning for PostgreSQL user.
Modified Files:
--
On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 17:25 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 25/06/10 16:11, Simon Riggs wrote:
Log Message:
---
Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
stat(2) field st_size returns bytes not kilobytes.
Bug found during recent performance tuning for
Shouldn't this be backpatched, or was this a new bug in 9.0?
We've always output bytes. I'd have noticed the discrepancy myself if
I'd read the actual docs ;-)
KB would be more useful. And I don't think people have enough scripts
built on this yet to make this break anything. We should
22 matches
Mail list logo
