[HACKERS] Question about SHM_QUEUE

2007-04-11 Thread ITAGAKI Takahiro
Hello, I have a question about SHM_QUEUE. Why do we need this component? We've already made some modules under the assumption that the base offset of shared memory is mapped to the same address for all processes. See comment in freespace.h: * Note: we handle pointers to these items as

Re: [HACKERS] prepared statements logging

2007-04-11 Thread tomas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 02:53:32AM -0700, marcofuics wrote: Hi * I am using the postgresql-8.2.3, with a jdbc-8.2-504 (the GeoNet webServer tool...) My question is : Is the PostGresDB server able to log the whole SELECT query? {made by a

Re: [HACKERS] CIC and deadlocks

2007-04-11 Thread Pavan Deolasee
On 4/1/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good point. I'm envisioning a procarray.c function along the lines of bool TransactionHasSnapshot(xid) which returns true if the xid is currently listed in PGPROC and has a nonzero xmin. CIC's cleanup wait loop would check this and ignore

Re: [HACKERS] Question about SHM_QUEUE

2007-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have a question about SHM_QUEUE. Why do we need this component? It's a hangover from Berkeley days that no one has felt a need to remove yet. The convention back then was that shared memory might be mapped to different addresses in different

Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] uuid type not documented

2007-04-11 Thread Marko Kreen
On 4/10/07, Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem is that most of the standard methods are platform dependent, as they require MAC addresses or a good random source, for instance. FYI: good random source is already available in pgcrypto, it uses either OpenSSL RAND_bytes() or

Re: [HACKERS] CIC and deadlocks

2007-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When I looked at the code, it occurred to me that possibly we are OK with just taking shared lock on the procarray. That means that some other transaction can concurrently set its serializable snapshot while we are scanning the procarray. But that

Re: [HACKERS] Question about SHM_QUEUE

2007-04-11 Thread ITAGAKI Takahiro
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a question about SHM_QUEUE. Why do we need this component? It's a hangover from Berkeley days that no one has felt a need to remove yet. Then, can we replace SHM_QUEUE by a pointer-based double-linked list? What exactly will you gain by it? I'm

Re: [HACKERS] CIC and deadlocks

2007-04-11 Thread Pavan Deolasee
On 4/11/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ itch... ] The problem is with time-extended execution of GetSnapshotData; what happens if the other guy lost the CPU for a good long time while in the middle of GetSnapshotData? He might set his xmin based on info you saw as long gone. You

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE using sub selects

2007-04-11 Thread NikhilS
Hi, Hmm. That sounds like it would be a horrid mess. You need to decouple the execution of the subplan from the use of its outputs, apparently. There is some precedent for this in the way that InitPlans are handled: the result of the subplan is stored into a ParamList array entry that's

[HACKERS] conflicting gettimeofday with MinGW

2007-04-11 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD
mingw-runtime-3.10 introduced a gettimeofday declaration in sys/time.h that is not compatible with port.h. (current is mingw-runtime-3.12) int __cdecl gettimeofday(struct timeval *__restrict__, void *__restrict__ /* tzp (unused) */); The problem was already reported by

Re: [HACKERS] conflicting gettimeofday with MinGW

2007-04-11 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:45:28PM +0200, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote: mingw-runtime-3.10 introduced a gettimeofday declaration in sys/time.h that is not compatible with port.h. (current is mingw-runtime-3.12) int __cdecl gettimeofday(struct timeval *__restrict__,

[HACKERS] UUID generation functions

2007-04-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
I have built some UUID generation functions using the library at http://www.ossp.org/pkg/lib/uuid/. This should cover all the usual ways to do it, and it also provides some special constants that could be useful. I have attached the code, but the code is actually against 8.2 with uuid defined

Re: [HACKERS] Question about SHM_QUEUE

2007-04-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a question about SHM_QUEUE. Why do we need this component? It's a hangover from Berkeley days that no one has felt a need to remove yet. Then, can we replace SHM_QUEUE by a pointer-based double-linked list? What

[HACKERS] Why need XLogReadBuffer have the paramter init?

2007-04-11 Thread Jacky Leng
Cann't we remove this param? We can rewrite like this: 1.XLogReadBuffer: * remove init; * everytime we cann't read a block, just log_invalid_page it, and return InvalidBuffer; 2.Also rewrite all functions calling XLogReadBuffer with init=true: skip current block if XLogReadBuffer return

Re: [HACKERS] conflicting gettimeofday with MinGW

2007-04-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote: mingw-runtime-3.10 introduced a gettimeofday declaration in sys/time.h that is not compatible with port.h. (current is mingw-runtime-3.12) int __cdecl gettimeofday(struct timeval *__restrict__, void *__restrict__ /* tzp (unused) */);

[HACKERS] Vista/IPv6

2007-04-11 Thread Dave Page
On Windows Vista, IPv6 is enabled by default, and cannot be uninstalled, or disabled easily on the loopback adaptor. localhost is ::1 by default, and the enhanced 'security' makes it insanely difficult to edit the hosts file. This means that the regression tests fail to run, leaving a

Re: [HACKERS] Vista/IPv6

2007-04-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Am Mittwoch, 11. April 2007 15:36 schrieb Dave Page: This means that the regression tests fail to run, leaving a postmaster.log full of 'no pg_hba.conf entry for host ::1' errors. Should we have initdb enable the ::1 pg_hba.conf trust entry by default on Vista? Any better options? The default

Re: [HACKERS] Question about SHM_QUEUE

2007-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: Hmmm, my next question is whether we should use SHM_QUEUE or not in new modules. The point deluded me when I wrote DSM and I wondered the autovacuum-multiworkers patch uses SHM_QUEUE. Good question. I used SHM_QUEUE because I

Re: [HACKERS] Vista/IPv6

2007-04-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Am Mittwoch, 11. April 2007 15:36 schrieb Dave Page: This means that the regression tests fail to run, leaving a postmaster.log full of 'no pg_hba.conf entry for host ::1' errors. Should we have initdb enable the ::1 pg_hba.conf trust entry by default on Vista? Any

Re: [HACKERS] Vista/IPv6

2007-04-11 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 10:08:36AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Am Mittwoch, 11. April 2007 15:36 schrieb Dave Page: This means that the regression tests fail to run, leaving a postmaster.log full of 'no pg_hba.conf entry for host ::1' errors. Should we have initdb

Re: [HACKERS] Vista/IPv6

2007-04-11 Thread Dave Page
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Am Mittwoch, 11. April 2007 15:36 schrieb Dave Page: This means that the regression tests fail to run, leaving a postmaster.log full of 'no pg_hba.conf entry for host ::1' errors. Should we have initdb enable the ::1 pg_hba.conf trust entry by

Re: [HACKERS] Vista/IPv6

2007-04-11 Thread Dave Page
Magnus Hagander wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 10:08:36AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Am Mittwoch, 11. April 2007 15:36 schrieb Dave Page: This means that the regression tests fail to run, leaving a postmaster.log full of 'no pg_hba.conf entry for host ::1' errors.

Re: [HACKERS] Vista/IPv6

2007-04-11 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 03:33:21PM +0100, Dave Page wrote: Magnus Hagander wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 10:08:36AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Am Mittwoch, 11. April 2007 15:36 schrieb Dave Page: This means that the regression tests fail to run, leaving a

Re: [HACKERS] Vista/IPv6

2007-04-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Am Mittwoch, 11. April 2007 16:46 schrieb Magnus Hagander: Point being - if you build on a ipv6 enabled machine, will that binary then work at all on a non-ipv6 machine? Consider binaries distributed by the installer... Might as well think up the proper fix before we just band-aid it for the

Re: [HACKERS] Vista/IPv6

2007-04-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Magnus Hagander wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 03:33:21PM +0100, Dave Page wrote: Magnus Hagander wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 10:08:36AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Am Mittwoch, 11. April 2007 15:36 schrieb Dave Page: This

Re: [HACKERS] Why need XLogReadBuffer have the paramter init?

2007-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
Jacky Leng [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Cann't we remove this param? No. We can rewrite like this: 1.XLogReadBuffer: * remove init; * everytime we cann't read a block, just log_invalid_page it, and return InvalidBuffer; Your proposal degrades the robustness of the system by turning

Re: [HACKERS] Vista/IPv6

2007-04-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Am Mittwoch, 11. April 2007 16:46 schrieb Magnus Hagander: Point being - if you build on a ipv6 enabled machine, will that binary then work at all on a non-ipv6 machine? Consider binaries distributed by the installer... Might as well think up the proper fix before we

Re: [HACKERS] UUID generation functions

2007-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have built some UUID generation functions using the library at http://www.ossp.org/pkg/lib/uuid/. This should cover all the usual ways to do it, and it also provides some special constants that could be useful. What should I do with this?

Re: [HACKERS] conflicting gettimeofday with MinGW

2007-04-11 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD
That page is ages out of date. The intended sync is apparently broken. The current download area is on sourceforge http://sf.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=2435 Andreas mingw-runtime-3.10 introduced a gettimeofday declaration in sys/time.h that is not compatible with port.h.

Re: [HACKERS] Vista/IPv6

2007-04-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Am Mittwoch, 11. April 2007 17:06 schrieb Andrew Dunstan: There is a configure time and a runtime check. The code is below - note the first #ifdef. Yeah, the problem is that the msvc build has no intelligence to detect the IPv6 APIs to define HAVE_IPV6. So that needs to be developed. --

Re: [HACKERS] conflicting gettimeofday with MinGW

2007-04-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote: That page is ages out of date. The intended sync is apparently broken. The current download area is on sourceforge http://sf.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=2435 *sigh* And what is in 3.12, which is apparently the current version? cheers andrew

Re: [HACKERS] conflicting gettimeofday with MinGW

2007-04-11 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD
That page is ages out of date. The intended sync is apparently broken. The current download area is on sourceforge http://sf.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=2435 *sigh* And what is in 3.12, which is apparently the current version? Sorry that was implied. sys/time.h did

Re: [HACKERS] UUID generation functions

2007-04-11 Thread Roman Neuhauser
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-04-11 14:27:47 +0200: I have built some UUID generation functions using the library at http://www.ossp.org/pkg/lib/uuid/. This should cover all the usual ways to do it, and it also provides some special constants that could be useful. There's already a mapping for

Re: [HACKERS] Vista/IPv6

2007-04-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Am Mittwoch, 11. April 2007 17:06 schrieb Andrew Dunstan: There is a configure time and a runtime check. The code is below - note the first #ifdef. Yeah, the problem is that the msvc build has no intelligence to detect the IPv6 APIs to define HAVE_IPV6. So

Re: [HACKERS] Vista/IPv6

2007-04-11 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Am Mittwoch, 11. April 2007 17:06 schrieb Andrew Dunstan: There is a configure time and a runtime check. The code is below - note the first #ifdef. Yeah, the problem is that the msvc build has

Re: [HACKERS] Vista/IPv6

2007-04-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Magnus Hagander wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Am Mittwoch, 11. April 2007 17:06 schrieb Andrew Dunstan: There is a configure time and a runtime check. The code is below - note the first #ifdef.

Re: [HACKERS] Vista/IPv6

2007-04-11 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 02:24:08PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Magnus Hagander wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Am Mittwoch, 11. April 2007 17:06 schrieb Andrew Dunstan: There is a configure time and a runtime

Re: [HACKERS] Vista/IPv6

2007-04-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Magnus Hagander wrote: Anyway, the obvious fix seems to be to add a line to src/tools/msvc/Solution.pm to #define HAVE_IPV6 1 in pg_config.h Won't work, that hits both msvc and mingw. (assuming you maen pg_config.h.win32, since pg_config.h is a generated file) The proper fix is to put

Re: [HACKERS] Vista/IPv6

2007-04-11 Thread Magnus Hagander
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Magnus Hagander wrote: Anyway, the obvious fix seems to be to add a line to src/tools/msvc/Solution.pm to #define HAVE_IPV6 1 in pg_config.h Won't work, that hits both msvc and mingw. (assuming you maen pg_config.h.win32, since pg_config.h is a generated file)

Re: [HACKERS] So are we calling it: Feature Freeze?

2007-04-11 Thread Magnus Hagander
Bruce Momjian wrote: Joshua D. Drake wrote: Hello, Should we announce? There is some web work etc.. to be done. Sure. I don't remember us doing anything special to annouce feature freeze, but if there is something, please go ahead. Given that nobody else did anything, I've updated the

[HACKERS] New email list about migration?

2007-04-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Should we create an email list just for migration questions? Seems it would be appropriate. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Re: [HACKERS] New email list about migration?

2007-04-11 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Bruce Momjian wrote: Should we create an email list just for migration questions? Seems it would be appropriate. I think we have enough lists :). Joshua D. Drake -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency:

Re: [HACKERS] New email list about migration?

2007-04-11 Thread Magnus Hagander
Joshua D. Drake wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Should we create an email list just for migration questions? Seems it would be appropriate. -1 on that. I think we have enough lists :). +1 on that. //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have

[HACKERS] Fwd: patch to suppress psql timing output in quiet mode

2007-04-11 Thread Merlin Moncure
[forwarded from -patches] I noticed that when psql accepts input from stdin or -f (but not -c), and timing is set to on in .psqlrc, timing results are printed out to stdout even when -q (quiet) is passed in. This may not be the perfect solution, but it fixes the problem (I'm having problems

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] [Fwd: Index Advisor]

2007-04-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Gurjeet Singh wrote: The interface etc. may not be beautiful, but it isn't ugly either! It is a lot better than manually creating pg_index records and inserting them into cache; we use index_create() API to create the index (build is deferred), and then 'rollback to savepoint' to undo

Re: [HACKERS] Vista/IPv6

2007-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The proper fix is to put it in the msvc build sys, where it writes pg_config.h :-) It also needs a new lib for initdb. I have a patch for it, and it works here, I'm just asking if it's safe to enable it or if it may cause runtmie problems on platforms

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Fix for large file support

2007-04-11 Thread Jim Nasby
If we expose LET_OS_MANAGE_FILESIZE, should we add a flag to the control file so that you can't start a backend that has that defined against a cluster that was initialized without it? On Apr 6, 2007, at 2:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: [ redirecting to -hackers for wider comment ] Zdenek Kotala

Re: [HACKERS] Eliminating unnecessary left joins

2007-04-11 Thread Jim Nasby
I agree with others that the way that query is constructed is a bit odd, but it does bring another optimization to mind: when doing an inner-join between a parent and child table when RI is defined between them, if the query only refers to the child table you can drop the parent table from

Re: [HACKERS] elog(FATAL) vs shared memory

2007-04-11 Thread Jim Nasby
FWIW, you might want to put some safeguards in there so that you don't try to inadvertently kill the backend that's running that function... unfortunately I don't think there's a built-in function to tell you the PID of the backend you're connected to; if you're connecting via TCP you

Re: [HACKERS] Vista/IPv6

2007-04-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Magnus Hagander wrote: (FWIW, I had ipv6 on my list of things to make happen, but I didn't realise it would cause this issue on a machine with ipv6 on it, since I don't have one) The IPv6 support is finely tuned to deal with all kinds of combinations of API support, library support, and

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Full page writes improvement, code update

2007-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
Koichi Suzuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For more information, when checkpoint interval is one hour, the amount of the archived log size was as follows: cp: 3.1GB gzip: 1.5GB pg_compresslog: 0.3GB The notion that 90% of the WAL could be backup blocks even at very long

Re: [HACKERS] Vista/IPv6

2007-04-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The proper fix is to put it in the msvc build sys, where it writes pg_config.h :-) It also needs a new lib for initdb. I have a patch for it, and it works here, I'm just asking if it's safe to enable it or if it may cause runtmie

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Fix for large file support

2007-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If we expose LET_OS_MANAGE_FILESIZE, should we add a flag to the control file so that you can't start a backend that has that defined against a cluster that was initialized without it? I imagine we'd flag that as relsegsize = 0 or some such.

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Full page writes improvement, code update

2007-04-11 Thread Koichi Suzuki
The score below was taken based on 8.2 code, not 8.3 code. So I don't think the below measure is introduced only in 8.3 code. Tom Lane wrote: Koichi Suzuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For more information, when checkpoint interval is one hour, the amount of the archived log size was as follows:

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Full page writes improvement, code update

2007-04-11 Thread Koichi Suzuki
I don't fully understand what transaction log means. If it means archived WAL, the current (8.2) code handle WAL as follows: 1) If full_page_writes=off, then no full page writes will be written to WAL, except for those during onlie backup (between pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup). The

[HACKERS] Makefile patch to make gcov work on Postgres contrib modules

2007-04-11 Thread Gregory Stark
I was trying to use gcov on Postgres and ran into a problem where some contrib modules were missing the key libcov symbols and failed to load. Korry very helpfully tracked down the missing bit: the broken modules were ones built using gcc -shared according to the rule in Makefile.linux which

Re: [HACKERS] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Anyone interested in improving postgresql scaling?]

2007-04-11 Thread Gregory Stark
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If there really are users who find 10 proctitle updates/second an unacceptably low update rate, then tune for the default case and provide an option to allow them to override the rate limit to whatever update rate they find appropriate. If you rate

Re: [HACKERS] Makefile patch to make gcov work on Postgres contrib modules

2007-04-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Gregory Stark wrote: Actually better than adding -lcov, I think this rule really ought to have CFLAGS in it in case there are other CFLAGS that are necessary at link time. But why would -lcov appear in CFLAGS? If it's a library it should be in LIBS and perhaps in SHLIB_LINK. -- Peter

Re: [HACKERS] Makefile patch to make gcov work on Postgres contrib modules

2007-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: %.so: %.o ! $(CC) -shared -o $@ $ sqlmansect = 7 --- 11,16 endif %.so: %.o ! $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -shared -o $@ $ Surely CFLAGS should be irrelevant at link time. Maybe LDFLAGS? regards, tom lane

Re: [HACKERS] Vista/IPv6

2007-04-11 Thread Warren Turkal
On Wednesday 11 April 2007 12:24, Andrew Dunstan wrote: If we could use configure for MSVC this would have Just Happened (tm). I wonder how many other little bits we miss out on? CMake anyone? wt -- Warren Turkal (w00t) ---(end of broadcast)---