On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 23:44:49 +0200 (CEST)
Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Personnaly, I'd be ok with having a separate "conversion function"
> table, and also with Tom suggestion to have string functions with
> "only simple string" functions, and if any binary appears it is moved
> into the binary
On Fri, 02 Aug 2019 10:44:43 -0400
Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't really have a problem with
> repeating the entries for other functions that exist in both
> text and bytea variants, either.
Ok. Thanks. I'll repeat entries then.
Regards,
Karl
Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 08:11:19AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 14:44 +0800, Adam Lee wrote:
I'm late to the party.
You are welcome to join any time!
These two approaches both spill the input tuples, what if the skewed
groups are not encountered before the hash table fills
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 09:39:48AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2019-08-02 20:40:51 +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
We have some kind of "roadmap" of "extensible pglz". We plan to
provide implementation on Novembers CF.
I don't understand why it's a good idea to improve the compression
Hi,
On 2019-08-02 19:00:39 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 09:39:48AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2019-08-02 20:40:51 +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> > > We have some kind of "roadmap" of "extensible pglz". We plan to
> > > provide implementation on
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 04:45:43PM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
On 27.06.2019 21:33, Andrey Borodin wrote:
13 мая 2019 г., в 12:14, Michael Paquier написал(а):
Decompression can matter a lot for mostly-read workloads and
compression can become a bottleneck for heavy-insert loads, so
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:42 AM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Trivial patch for that attached.
Thanks!
> The output is now like:
>
> [...]
> Using an oid in the 8000- range is recommended.
> For instance: 9427
>
> (checking that the suggested random oid is not used yet.)
I've taken your patch,
Hi,
On 2019-08-02 19:52:39 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Hmmm, I don't remember the details of those patches so I didn't realize
> it allows incremental recompression. If that's possible, that would mean
> existing systems can start using it. Which is good.
That depends on what do you mean by
Hi hackers,
While I was reviewing some code in another patch, I stumbled upon a possible
optimization in the btree index code in nbtsearch.c for queries using 'LIMIT
1'. I have written a small patch that implements this optimization, but I'd
like some feedback on the design of the patch,
"Karl O. Pinc" writes:
> But I'm not happy with putting any function that works with
> bytea into the binary string section. This would mean moving,
> say, length() out of the regular string section. There's a
> lot of functions that work on both string and bytea inputs
> and most (not all, see
On 8/2/19 10:32 AM, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> But I'm not happy with putting any function that works with
> bytea into the binary string section. This would mean moving,
> say, length() out of the regular string section.
I'm not sure why. The bytea section already has an entry for its
length()
Hoi hackers,
Here is a reworked version of the previous patches.
The original three patches have been collapsed into one as given the
changes discussed it didn't make sense to keep them separate. There
are now two patches (the third is just to help with testing):
Patch 1: Tracks the listening
Thanks for looking into this!
> 2 авг. 2019 г., в 19:43, Tomas Vondra
> написал(а):
>
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 04:45:43PM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
>>
>> It takes me some time to understand that your memcpy optimization is
>> correct;)
Seems that comments are not explanatory
Hi,
On 8/2/19 8:14 AM, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
And this too (slightly rewritten:). We will soon post the new version of patch
with updates about UniqueKey from Jesper.
Yes.
We decided to send this now, although there is still feedback from David
that needs to be considered/acted on.
The
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 10:12:58AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2019-08-02 19:00:39 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 09:39:48AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-08-02 20:40:51 +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> > We have some kind of "roadmap" of "extensible
On 18.07.2019 6:19, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
I noticed that there are some confusions in the doc and code regarding what the
new
configuration parameter means. According to the doc:
+Default value is zero - it disables connection
+checks, so the backend will detect client
Hi,
On 2019-08-02 20:40:51 +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> We have some kind of "roadmap" of "extensible pglz". We plan to provide
> implementation on Novembers CF.
I don't understand why it's a good idea to improve the compression side
of pglz. There's plenty other people that spent a lot of
Hi,
On 2019-07-31 17:04:38 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> I looked into trying to do the things I mentioned above and it seems
> to me that revising BeginDirectModify()'s API to receive the
> ResultRelInfo directly as Andres suggested might be the best way
> forward. I've implemented that in the
On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 14:44 +0800, Adam Lee wrote:
> I'm late to the party.
You are welcome to join any time!
> These two approaches both spill the input tuples, what if the skewed
> groups are not encountered before the hash table fills up? The spill
> files' size and disk I/O could be
Thomas Munro writes:
> There have been five failures on three animals like this, over the
> past couple of months:
Also worth noting is that anole failed its first try at the new
deadlock-parallel isolation test:
Hi,
I have rebased the patch and currently reviewing the patch
on master (1e2fddfa33d3c7cc93ca3ee0f32852699bd3e012).
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 4:45 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 2:12 AM Ibrar Ahmed wrote:
> > I start looking at the patch, there is a couple of problems with
Greetings,
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 19:36 Ian Barwick
wrote:
> On 8/3/19 8:24 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2019-08-03 08:22:29 +0900, Ian Barwick wrote:
> >> What I came up with shoehorned a stripped-down version of the backend
> >> config parser into fe_utils and provides a
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 3:52 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Better ... but I'm the world's second worst Perl programmer,
> so I have little to say about whether it's idiomatic.
Perhaps Michael can weigh in here? I'd rather hear a second opinion on
v4 of the patch before proceeding.
--
Peter Geoghegan
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:51 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:21 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
>
> I have reviewed 0012-Infrastructure-to-execute-pending-undo-actions,
> Please find my comment so far.
..
> 4.
> +void
> +undoaction_redo(XLogReaderState *record)
> +{
> + uint8 info
Attached 6th version of the patches.
On 01.08.2019 22:28, Tom Lane wrote:
Alexander Korotkov writes:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:59 PM Tom Lane wrote:
While I've not attempted to fix that here, I wonder whether we shouldn't
fix it by just forcing forcedRecheck to true in any case where we
On 02.08.2019 21:20, Andres Freund wrote:
Another question is whether we'd actually want to include the code in
core directly, or use system libraries (and if some packagers might
decide to disable that, for whatever reason).
I'd personally say we should have an included version, and a
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 11:20:03AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2019-08-02 19:52:39 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hmmm, I don't remember the details of those patches so I didn't realize
it allows incremental recompression. If that's possible, that would mean
existing systems can start using
Hi,
On 2019-08-02 18:38:46 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 18:27 Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Tomas Vondra writes:
> > > There seems to be a consensus that this this not a pg_basebackup issue
> > > (i.e. duplicate values don't make the file invalid), and it should be
> > >
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2019-08-02 18:47:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't find that to be necessary or even desirable. Many (most?) of the
>> situations where this would be important wouldn't have access to a running
>> backend, and maybe not to any PG code at all --- what if your tool
Hi,
On 2019-08-01 18:38:09 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 10:33 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> > If it's the approach of adding a resultRelation Index field to
> > ForeignScan node, I tried and had to give up, realizing that we don't
> > maintain ResultRelInfos in an array that
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:49 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Maybe s/make a/start with/ ?
> Also, once people start doing this, it'd be unfriendly to suggest
> 9099 if 9100 is already committed. There should be some attention
> to *how many* consecutive free OIDs will be available if one starts
> at the
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 16:49, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan writes:
> > I've taken your patch, and changed the wording a bit. I think that
> > it's worth being a bit more explicit. The attached revision produces
> > output that looks like this:
>
> > Patches should use a more-or-less
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> Attached is v3, which implements your suggestion, generating output
> like the above. I haven't written a line of Perl in my life prior to
> today, so basic code review would be helpful.
The "if ($oid > $prev_oid + 2)" test seems unnecessary.
It's certainly wrong to
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> How about the attached? I've simply removed the "if ($oid > $prev_oid
> + 2)" test.
Better ... but I'm the world's second worst Perl programmer,
so I have little to say about whether it's idiomatic.
regards, tom lane
I wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
>> I think a commandline tool to perform the equivalent of ALTER SYSTEM on
>> a shutdown cluster would be a great tool.
> Perhaps, but ...
>> Obviously this is widely out of scope for v12.
> ... this.
Although, there's always
echo "alter system set work_mem =
On 8/3/19 7:56 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2019-08-02 18:47:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Stephen Frost writes:
I disagree that this should only be addressed in alter system, as I’ve said
before and as others have agreed with. Having one set of code that can be
used to update parameters in
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your quick reply!
> Regardless of whether there's actually a LIMIT 1? That seems disastrous
> for every other case than the narrow one where the optimization wins.
> Because every other case is now going to have to touch the index page
> twice. That's more CPU and about
=?UTF-8?B?SXZhbiBQYW5jaGVua28=?= writes:
> I have found a bug in jsonb_plperl extension. A possible fix is proposed
> below.
> ...
> + /* SVt_PV without POK flag is also NULL */
> + if(SvTYPE(in) == SVt_PV)
Ugh. Doesn't Perl provide some
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:06 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Looking at the code as of master, we currently have:
>
Super awesome feedback and insights, thank you!
- PredicateLockTuple() calls SubTransGetTopmostTransaction() to figure
> out a whether the tuple has been locked by the current
>
Greetings,
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 18:47 Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 18:27 Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> The proposal seems to be to run through the .auto.conf file, remove any
> >>> duplicates, and append the new entry at the end. That seems reasonable.
>
> >>
Tomas Vondra writes:
> I think there's a consensus to change INFO to DEBUG1 in pg12, and then
> maybe imlpement something like VERBOSE mode in the future. Objections?
ISTM the consensus is "we'd rather reduce the verbosity, but we don't
want to give up test coverage". So what's blocking this is
Floris Van Nee writes:
> Every time the index scan is done, all tuples from the leaf page are
> read in nbtsearch.c:_bt_readpage. The idea of this patch is to make an
> exception for this *only* the first time amgettuple gets called.
Regardless of whether there's actually a LIMIT 1? That seems
Hi,
This thread discusses an issue that's tracked as an open item for pg12,
but it's been quiet for the last ~1 month. I think it's probably time to
decide what to do with it. The thread is a bit long, so let me sum what
the issue is and what options we have.
The problem is that ALTER SYSTEM
Greetings,
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 18:27 Tom Lane wrote:
> Tomas Vondra writes:
> > There seems to be a consensus that this this not a pg_basebackup issue
> > (i.e. duplicate values don't make the file invalid), and it should be
> > handled in ALTER SYSTEM.
>
> Yeah. I doubt pg_basebackup is
On 8/3/19 7:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Tomas Vondra writes:
There seems to be a consensus that this this not a pg_basebackup issue
(i.e. duplicate values don't make the file invalid), and it should be
handled in ALTER SYSTEM.
Yeah. I doubt pg_basebackup is the only actor that can create such
Stephen Frost writes:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 18:27 Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The proposal seems to be to run through the .auto.conf file, remove any
>>> duplicates, and append the new entry at the end. That seems reasonable.
>> +1
> I disagree that this should only be addressed in alter system, as
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 06:38:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Greetings,
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 18:27 Tom Lane wrote:
Tomas Vondra writes:
> There seems to be a consensus that this this not a pg_basebackup issue
> (i.e. duplicate values don't make the file invalid), and it should be
>
Hi,
On 2019-08-03 08:22:29 +0900, Ian Barwick wrote:
> What I came up with shoehorned a stripped-down version of the backend
> config parser into fe_utils and provides a function to modify pg.auto.conf
> in much the same way ALTER SYSTEM does, but with only the basic syntax
> checking provided by
Hi,
On 2019-08-02 20:27:25 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 18:47 Tom Lane wrote:
> > Stephen Frost writes:
> > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 18:27 Tom Lane wrote:
> > >>> The proposal seems to be to run through the .auto.conf file, remove any
> > >>> duplicates, and append the
Hi,
On 2019-08-02 20:57:20 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> No, I’m saying that we already *have* a library and we can add a few
> functions to it and if people want to leverage those functions then they
> can write glue code to do so, just like was done with libpq. The argument
> that “we shouldn’t
Hi,
On 2019-08-02 10:34:24 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello Andres,
>
> Thanks a lot for these feedbacks and comments.
>
> > Using pgbench -Mprepared -n -c 8 -j 8 -S pgbench_100 -T 10 -r -P1
> > e.g. shows pgbench to use 189% CPU in my 4/8 core/thread laptop. That's
> > a pretty
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 08:34:57AM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 at 03:35, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> Does anyone think we shouldn't change the INFO message in ATTACH
> PARTITION to a DEBUG1 in PG12?
Seems no one wants to vote against this change.
I'm concerned about two
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 3:01 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-07-31 17:04:38 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > I looked into trying to do the things I mentioned above and it seems
> > to me that revising BeginDirectModify()'s API to receive the
> > ResultRelInfo directly as Andres suggested
See
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/082c9f5f761ced18a6f014f2638096f6a8228164
Please send comments/corrections before Sunday.
regards, tom lane
Hi,
On 2019-08-03 05:20:35 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 3:01 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2019-07-31 17:04:38 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > I looked into trying to do the things I mentioned above and it seems
> > > to me that revising BeginDirectModify()'s API to
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:52 PM Isaac Morland wrote:
> Noob question here: why not start with the next unused OID in the range, and
> on the other hand reserve the range for sequentially-assigned values?
The general idea is to avoid OID collisions while a patch is under
development. Choosing a
On 8/3/19 8:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
Andres Freund writes:
I think a commandline tool to perform the equivalent of ALTER SYSTEM on
a shutdown cluster would be a great tool.
Perhaps, but ...
Obviously this is widely out of scope for v12.
... this.
Although, there's always
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:43 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Meh. I think the odds that you got this 100% right are small, and the
> odds that it would be maintainable are smaller. There's too much that
> can happen if you're not holding any lock --- and there's a lot of active
> work on btree indexes,
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 5:34 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I wonder if some variety of block nested loop join would be helpful
> here. I'm not aware of any specific design that would help with
> Floris' case, but the idea of reducing the number of scans required on
> the inner side by buffering
Hi,
On 2019-08-01 12:23:42 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Roughly, on both master and with the patches, the first one takes
> about 4.2 seconds, the second 7.5, and the third 1.2. The third one
> is the fastest because it doesn't do any compression. Since it does
> less irrelevant work than the
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 3:19 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> The "if ($oid > $prev_oid + 2)" test seems unnecessary.
> It's certainly wrong to keep iterating beyond the first
> oid that's > $suggestion.
Sorry. That was just carelessness on my part. (Being the world's worst
Perl programmer is no excuse.)
Hi,
On 2019-08-02 18:47:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > I disagree that this should only be addressed in alter system, as I’ve said
> > before and as others have agreed with. Having one set of code that can be
> > used to update parameters in the auto.conf and then have
Hi,
On 2019-08-02 10:54:35 +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:05 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > I'm actually quite unconvinced that it's sensible to update the global
> > value for nested queries. That'll mean e.g. the log_line_prefix and
> > pg_stat_activity values are
On 8/3/19 8:24 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2019-08-03 08:22:29 +0900, Ian Barwick wrote:
What I came up with shoehorned a stripped-down version of the backend
config parser into fe_utils and provides a function to modify pg.auto.conf
in much the same way ALTER SYSTEM does, but with only
The patch does not work.
postgres=# CREATE TABLE foo (id int,r int4range, valid_at tsrange, CONSTRAINT
bar_pk PRIMARY KEY (r, valid_at WITHOUT OVERLAPS));
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# CREATE TABLE bar (id int,r int4range, valid_at tsrange, CONSTRAINT
bar_fk FOREIGN KEY (r, PERIOD valid_at)
Le ven. 2 août 2019 à 20:12, Peter Geoghegan a écrit :
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:42 AM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > Trivial patch for that attached.
>
> Thanks!
>
> > The output is now like:
> >
> > [...]
> > Using an oid in the 8000- range is recommended.
> > For instance: 9427
> >
> >
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> I've taken your patch, and changed the wording a bit. I think that
> it's worth being a bit more explicit. The attached revision produces
> output that looks like this:
> Patches should use a more-or-less consecutive range of OIDs.
> Best practice is to make a random
Hi,
I have found a bug in jsonb_plperl extension. A possible fix is proposed below.
jsonb_perl is the contrib module, which defines TRANSFORM functions for jsonb
data type and PL/Perl procedural language.
The bug can be reproduced as follows:
CREATE EXTENSION plperl;
CREATE EXTENSION
Tomas Vondra writes:
> There seems to be a consensus that this this not a pg_basebackup issue
> (i.e. duplicate values don't make the file invalid), and it should be
> handled in ALTER SYSTEM.
Yeah. I doubt pg_basebackup is the only actor that can create such
situations.
> The proposal seems
Greetings,
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 20:46 Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-08-02 20:27:25 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 18:47 Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Stephen Frost writes:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 18:27 Tom Lane wrote:
> > > >>> The proposal seems to be to
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 5:06 PM Jeevan Chalke
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 9:39 AM Jeevan Chalke
> wrote:
>>
>> I am almost done writing the patch for pg_combinebackup and will post soon.
>
>
> Attached patch which implements the pg_combinebackup utility used to combine
> full basebackup
On 27.06.2019 21:33, Andrey Borodin wrote:
13 мая 2019 г., в 12:14, Michael Paquier написал(а):
Decompression can matter a lot for mostly-read workloads and
compression can become a bottleneck for heavy-insert loads, so
improving compression or decompression should be two separate
Hello Robert,
All in all, pgbench overheads are small compared to postgres processing
times and representative of a reasonably optimized client application.
It's pretty easy to devise tests where pgbench is client-limited --
just try running it with threads = clients/4, sometimes even
Hello,
I currently have the problem that a simple prepared statement for a
query like
select * from vw_report_invoice where id = $1
results in 33MB memory consumption on my side. It is a query that does
about >20 joins over partially wide tables, but only a very small subset
of columns
Hi
>> Thanks for the set of flags. So this comes from the use of -Og, and
>> the rest of the tree does not complain. The issue is that gcc
>> complains about the buffer not being large enough, but %d only uses up
>> to 2 characters so there is no overflow. In order to fix the issue it
>> is
> High-level approaches:
>
> 1. When the in-memory hash table fills, keep existing entries in the
> hash table, and spill the raw tuples for all new groups in a
> partitioned fashion. When all input tuples are read, finalize groups
> in memory and emit. Now that the in-memory hash table is
Hi,
On 2019-07-02 10:50:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Andres Freund writes:
> >> Tom, any comments? Otherwise I'll go ahead, and commit after a round or
> >> two of polishing.
>
> > Sorry for not getting to this sooner --- I'll try to look tomorrow.
>
> I took a look, and I think
Hello.
At Fri, 2 Aug 2019 11:35:06 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote
in
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 6:26 PM Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:39:36AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > No substantial change have been made by this rebasing.
> >
> > Thanks. I'll likely review this on
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, failed
Spec compliant: tested, failed
Documentation:not tested
Hi Antonin,
It is very glad to see the new patch. I used the
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 8:20 PM Binguo Bao wrote:
>
> John Naylor 于2019年7月29日周一 上午11:49写道：
>>
>> 1). For every needle comparison, text_position_next_internal()
>> calculates how much of the value is needed and passes that to
>> detoast_iterate(), which then calculates if it has to do something
On 02.08.2019 12:57, DEV_OPS wrote:
Hello Konstantin
would you please re-base this patch? I'm going to test it, and back port
into PG10 stable and PG9 stable
thank you very much
Thank you.
Rebased patch is attached.
--
Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 7:46 PM Arne Roland wrote:
> Hello Richard,
>
> thanks for your quick reply.
>
>
> > We need to fix this.
>
>
> Do you have a better idea than just keeping the old quals - possibly just
> the ones that get eliminated - in a separate data structure? Is the push
> down of
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 10:18 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> It's British vs. American spelling. For the most part, Postgres
> follows American spelling, but there's the odd Briticism here and
> there.
Thanks for the explanation. I thought that might be the case but didn't
find any other usages of
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:38 AM vignesh C wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 5:36 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:32 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > > There is also one more comment which is yet to be concluded. The
> > > comment discusses about changing subxids which are of
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:11 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:42 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund writes:
> > > On 2019-07-24 20:34:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Yeah, I would absolutely NOT recommend that you open that can of worms
> > >> right now. We have looked at
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 12:11 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 11:01:59PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I think slight variations don't really detract from the value of the
> > product, and consider the odd variation a reminder of the diversity of
> > the project. I don't
On 8/1/19 12:04 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 11:47:46AM +0200, Adrien Nayrat wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As we are at the end of this CF and there is still discussions about whether
>> we
>> should revert log_statement_sample_limit and log_statement_sample_rate, or
>> try
>> to fix
Am 01.08.2019 um 18:56 schrieb Konstantin Knizhnik:
I decided to implement your proposal. Much simple version of
autoprepare patch is attached.
At my computer I got the following results:
pgbench -M simple -S 22495 TPS
pgbench -M extended -S 47633 TPS
pgbench -M prepared -S
Hello Andres,
Thanks a lot for these feedbacks and comments.
Using pgbench -Mprepared -n -c 8 -j 8 -S pgbench_100 -T 10 -r -P1
e.g. shows pgbench to use 189% CPU in my 4/8 core/thread laptop. That's
a pretty significant share.
Fine, but what is the corresponding server load? 211%? 611%? And
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:05 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> I'm actually quite unconvinced that it's sensible to update the global
> value for nested queries. That'll mean e.g. the log_line_prefix and
> pg_stat_activity values are most of the time going to be bogus while
> nested, because the
On 02.08.2019 11:25, Daniel Migowski wrote:
Am 01.08.2019 um 18:56 schrieb Konstantin Knizhnik:
I decided to implement your proposal. Much simple version of
autoprepare patch is attached.
At my computer I got the following results:
pgbench -M simple -S 22495 TPS
pgbench -M
Am 02.08.2019 um 10:57 schrieb Konstantin Knizhnik:
On 02.08.2019 11:25, Daniel Migowski wrote:
I have two suggestions however:
1. Please allow to gather information about the autoprepared
statements by returning them in pg_prepared_statements view. I would
love to monitor usage of them as
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 6:21 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 06:59:06PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > Seems like I should propose a patch this time around. I don't do Perl,
> > but I suppose I could manage something as trivial as this.
>
> Well, that new project policy is
Hello,
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=elver=2019-07-24%2003%3A22%3A17
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=crake=2019-08-02%2007%3A17%3A25
I wondered if this might be like the recently fixed problem with slapd
not being ready to handle requests yet,
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 10:15 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Richard Guo writes:
> > For the third query, a rough investigation shows that, the qual 'sl =
> > 5' and 'sc.sl = sg.sl' will form an equivalence class and generate two
> > implied equalities: 'sc.sl = 5' and 'sg.sl = 5', which can be pushed
>
I guess the CF app could show those kind of metrics, but having a
written report from a human seems to be a good idea (I got it from
Alvaro's blog[1]). The CF is now closed, and here are the final
numbers:
status | w1 | w2 | w3 | w4 | final
Hi,
There have been five failures on three animals like this, over the
past couple of months:
step s6a7: LOCK TABLE a7;
step s7a8: LOCK TABLE a8;
step s8a1: LOCK TABLE a1;
-step s8a1: <... completed>
step s7a8: <... completed>
-error in steps s8a1 s7a8: ERROR: deadlock detected
+step
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 6:37 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> Thanks. This looks pretty reasonable to me, and I don't think we need
> to worry about the subxid list for now.
Why not just do them all at once?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:21 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
>
> I feel uncomfortable to look into indexinfo there. Couldnd't we
> use indexskipprefix == -1 to signal !amcanskip from
> create_index_path?
Looks like it's not that straightforward to do this only in create_index_path,
since to
99 matches
Mail list logo
