[HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Gokulakannan Somasundaram
Forgot to include the group... -- Forwarded message -- From: Gokulakannan Somasundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Nov 5, 2007 3:04 PM Subject: Re: Clarification about HOT To: Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 11/2/07, Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "Gokulakan

[HACKERS] Visibility map thoughts

2007-11-05 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Though 8.3 isn't out of the oven just yet, I've been thinking about the dead space map a lot, and decided I have to start writing down those thoughts. Reducing VACUUM time is important, but the real big promise is the ability to do index-only-scans. Because that's the main focus of this exerc

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: Thanks for all the inputs. My question would be if we decide to update the top of the HOT chain in the Index itself. Right now we are carrying a list of tuple-ids to be vacuumed, when we vacuum the index. Say we carry another list (or through some better mechanism

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Gokulakannan Somasundaram
On 11/5/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > > Thanks for all the inputs. My question would be if we decide to update > the > > top of the HOT chain in the Index itself. Right now we are carrying a > list > > of tuple-ids to be vacuumed, when we v

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: I think pointer swinging is still about maintaining the HOT chain within a page. Actually i am thinking about continuing the HOT chain across pages. AFAICS, pointer-swinging would be exactly the same on cross-page HOT chains as same-page chains. -- Heikki L

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Gokulakannan Somasundaram
On 11/5/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > > I think pointer swinging is still about maintaining the HOT chain within > a > > page. Actually i am thinking about continuing the HOT chain across > pages. > > AFAICS, pointer-swinging would be exact

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: On 11/5/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: AFAICS, pointer-swinging would be exactly the same on cross-page HOT chains as same-page chains. When i read pointer-swinging, it talks a lot about in-page updates, pointing to the latest tuple instead o

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Gokulakannan Somasundaram
> > > b) Whenever we Vacuum the index, we take a list of tids and check > whether > > there are any index tuples pointing to it. If the Vacuumed tuple is a > start > > of the HOT chain, then we will carry the next in-line HOT tuple when we > goto > > Vacuum the index. If the next in-line also satis

Re: [HACKERS] should I worry?

2007-11-05 Thread ohp
Hi Tom On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Tom Lane wrote: > Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:47:04 -0500 > From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] should I worry? > > I wrote: > > Hmm, this is messier than I thought. What evidently has happ

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: b) Whenever we Vacuum the index, we take a list of tids and check whether there are any index tuples pointing to it. If the Vacuumed tuple is a start of the HOT chain, then we will carry the next in-line HOT tuple when we goto Vacuum the index. If the next i

Fwd: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Gokulakannan Somasundaram
Again Forgot to include the group... -- Forwarded message -- From: Gokulakannan Somasundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Nov 5, 2007 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT To: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 11/5/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTEC

[HACKERS] Slow regression tests on windows

2007-11-05 Thread Gevik Babakhani
I am trying to run regression tests on both windows and RH. It looks like that the tests on windows run slower than linux using two machines with same hardware config. Is this known? Gevik Babakhani PostgreSQL NL http://www.postgresql.nl

Re: [HACKERS] should I worry?

2007-11-05 Thread Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Tom Lane wrote: >> So you have a *bunch* of partially broken FK constraints in that source >> database. > I just talk to my customer and he/we'll make a big batch deleting and > recreating all foreign keys on 8.2.5. > The question is, how do we get r

Re: [HACKERS] Slow regression tests on windows

2007-11-05 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Gevik Babakhani wrote: I am trying to run regression tests on both windows and RH. It looks like that the tests on windows run slower than linux using two machines with same hardware config. Is this known? We need far more information than this before we can say much sensibly, I thin

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Tom Lane
"Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > May be i am missing something in the big picture. Please clarify me on that. Locking. Your proposal involves lots of multi-page operations, which are best avoided. Moreover, you have offered no data to suggest that there would be any real

Re: [HACKERS] Visibility map thoughts

2007-11-05 Thread Gokulakannan Somasundaram
This is my feedback regarding the Visibility map. I just want to disagree on the fact that the DSM/Visibility map would not focus on Vacuum. I think Index only scans should be thought of as a fringe benefit of DSMs/ Visibility Maps. There are some basic assumptions in the design, which says that a

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Gokulakannan Somasundaram
Tom, Let me try to understand your statement. What extra multi-page operations are we doing? Currently, during Vacuum, we goto the Index and mark it as dead and reclaim the space. For doing this, we are acquiring a Super-Exclusive lock. After this implementation, we would update the inde

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Pavan Deolasee
On Nov 5, 2007 7:37 PM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom, >Let me try to understand your statement. > > What extra multi-page operations are we doing? > Currently, during Vacuum, we goto the Index and mark it as dead and > reclaim the space. For doing this, we

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Gokulakannan Somasundaram
Thanks for the feedback. Let me try to put what is there in my mind for this. Please clarify whether my assumptions are valid On 11/5/07, Pavan Deolasee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 5, 2007 7:37 PM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Tom, > >Let me tr

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Tom Lane
"Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Currently, during Vacuum, we goto the Index and mark it as dead and > reclaim the space. For doing this, we are acquiring a Super-Exclusive lock. > After this implementation, we would update the index tuple instead of > marking it for cle

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Pavan Deolasee
On Nov 5, 2007 8:04 PM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > There may not be anything called chain-pruning. Instead the tuples, which > are to be vacuumed, will get vacuumed, after redirecting their index tuple > peers, during the Vacuum process. > > This won't help us chec

Re: [HACKERS] Visibility map thoughts

2007-11-05 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: a) The inserts won't increase the size of the table. If it increases, it has to lock one full page of Visibility map and this is not suitable for tables, which are short-lived like partitioned tables The overhead of locking a page is very small. Actually, exten

Re: [HACKERS] minimal update

2007-11-05 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tom Lane wrote: A BEFORE UPDATE trigger would be better, and probably hardly more expensive than a wired-in facility (especially if you were willing to write it in C). Yes. I also prefer the trigger idea to a rule

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Gokulakannan Somasundaram
On 11/5/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Currently, during Vacuum, we goto the Index and mark it as dead and > > reclaim the space. For doing this, we are acquiring a Super-Exclusive > lock. > > After this implementation, we

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: There's also the little problem that a redirect line pointer doesn't have room for a cross-page link, i don't know, what is a re-direct line pointer. Then you clearly don't understand at all how HOT works. Please go read src/backend/access/heap/README.HOT.

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Gokulakannan Somasundaram
On 11/5/07, Pavan Deolasee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 5, 2007 8:04 PM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > There may not be anything called chain-pruning. Instead the tuples, > > which are to be vacuumed, will get vacuumed, after redirecting their ind

Re: [HACKERS] Slow regression tests on windows

2007-11-05 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 08:43:01AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Gevik Babakhani wrote: > >I am trying to run regression tests on both windows and RH. > >It looks like that the tests on windows run slower than linux > >using two machines with same hardware config. > > > >Is this known? > >

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Gokulakannan Somasundaram
Thanks Heikki. To clarify, there won't be any redirect-line pointers in this implementation. That space is saved. We will have the index tuple point to the latest live tuple in the update chain. So no need for redirect-line pointers. Thanks, Gokul. On 11/5/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTE

[HACKERS] plpgsql keywords are hidden reserved words

2007-11-05 Thread Tom Lane
I was somewhat bemused just now to find that this function stopped working: regression=# create function estimate_rows(query text) returns float8 as $$ declare r text; begin for r in execute 'explain ' || query loop if substring(r from 'rows=[0-9]') is not null then return substring (r

Re: [HACKERS] minimal update

2007-11-05 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Well, you could write the trigger in C and it'd work for any table. >> I think it could be as simple as a memcmp of the tuples' data areas, >> since we now require padding bytes to be 0 ... > Something like this fragment? > newtupl

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: Thanks Heikki. To clarify, there won't be any redirect-line pointers in this implementation. That space is saved. We will have the index tuple point to the latest live tuple in the update chain. So no need for redirect-line pointers. The redirected line pointer

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql keywords are hidden reserved words

2007-11-05 Thread Gregory Stark
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I was somewhat bemused just now to find that this function stopped > working: > > regression=# create function estimate_rows(query text) returns float8 as $$ ... > This works fine in 8.2. The reason it no longer works is that "query" > is now a special to

Re: [HACKERS] Slow regression tests on windows

2007-11-05 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Magnus Hagander wrote: From what I can see MinGW regression is somewhat slower than MSVC (and even than Cygwin) on my buildfarm VM that runs all three, even though the latter two are rate limited by MAX_CONNECTIONS. Uh, you're saying MSVC and Cygwin somehow differ from MingW? I

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Gokulakannan Somasundaram
On 11/5/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > > Thanks Heikki. To clarify, there won't be any redirect-line pointers in > this > > implementation. That space is saved. We will have the index tuple point > to > > the latest live tuple in the update

Re: [HACKERS] Slow regression tests on windows

2007-11-05 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 11:01:26AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Magnus Hagander wrote: > >>From what I can see MinGW regression is somewhat slower than MSVC (and > >>even than Cygwin) on my buildfarm VM that runs all three, even though > >>the latter two are rate limited by MAX_CONNECTION

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: PL/pgSQL EXECUTE INTO USING (for 8.4)

2007-11-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
This has been saved for the 8.4 release: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold --- Pavel Stehule wrote: > Hello, > > this proposal change older unaccepted proposal > http://archives.postgresql.org/pg

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add a note about another issue that needs to be considered before

2007-11-05 Thread Tom Lane
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > FWIW I found another issue with this variable when I was experimenting with > small block sizes. If you set the target <= the tuple header the toaster > breaks. This is because it's doing unsigned arithmetic (Size is unsigned). I > think the right solutio

Re: [HACKERS] Slow regression tests on windows

2007-11-05 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Magnus Hagander wrote: In fact, on the last run of each, MinGW was by far the slowest and Cygwin the fastest in the "make check" step. But there could be any number of reasons for that, including extraneous activity on the VM host that could have slowed the whole VM down. Yeah. It does

Re: [HACKERS] Visibility map thoughts

2007-11-05 Thread Gokulakannan Somasundaram
On 11/5/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > > a) The inserts won't increase the size of the table. If it increases, it > has > > to lock one full page of Visibility map and this is not suitable for > tables, > > which are short-lived like partiti

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: Add a note about another issue that needs to be considered before

2007-11-05 Thread Gregory Stark
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> FWIW I found another issue with this variable when I was experimenting with >> small block sizes. If you set the target <= the tuple header the toaster >> breaks. This is because it's doing unsigned arithmetic (S

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 09:32:08PM +0530, Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > Say, if we have a table with 4 indexes and updates occur in such intervals, > we may not be able to find space in the same page for the update. Currently > we are incurring the overhead of updating all the indexes in this

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT

2007-11-05 Thread Gokulakannan Somasundaram
On 11/5/07, Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 09:32:08PM +0530, Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > > Say, if we have a table with 4 indexes and updates occur in such > intervals, > > we may not be able to find space in the same page for the update. > Curr

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl configurable timeout

2007-11-05 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I think the mythical pg_ping utility should be written. It seems the > > easiest way out of the problem. > > If pg_ctl were still a shell script there would be some point in that, > but since it's a C program it can certainly do any

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl configurable timeout

2007-11-05 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> I think the mythical pg_ping utility should be written. It seems the >>> easiest way out of the problem. >> >> If pg_ctl were still a shell script there would be some point in that, >> b

Re: [HACKERS] dblink un-named connection doesn't get re-used

2007-11-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
This has been saved for the 8.4 release: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold --- Decibel! wrote: > Is it intentional that dblink's unnamed connections don't get re-used? > > stats=# select datname,

Re: [HACKERS] A small rant about coding style for backend functions

2007-11-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
I understand your suggestions but it seems there would be too many individual items to be readable. Can you suggest a full list so we can get an idea of how long it would be? --- Brendan Jurd wrote: > On 11/1/07, Bruce Momj

[HACKERS] Open items for 8.3

2007-11-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
In an attempt to move us toward 8.3 RC1 I have put all open item emails into the patches queue: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.3

2007-11-05 Thread Joshua D. Drake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:47:10 -0500 (EST) Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In an attempt to move us toward 8.3 RC1 I have put all open item > emails into the patches queue: > > http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches > It woul

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql keywords are hidden reserved words

2007-11-05 Thread Tom Lane
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> This works fine in 8.2. The reason it no longer works is that "query" >> is now a special token in the plpgsql lexer, and that means that it will >> never be substituted for by read_sql_construct(). So it's effe

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql keywords are hidden reserved words

2007-11-05 Thread Tom Lane
John DeSoi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is there any feasibility to the idea of allowing pl/pgsql variables > and parameters to be prefixed with a special character like '$'? I find this (a) really ugly, (b) incompatible with Oracle, which you'll recall is one of the main driving ideas for plpg

[HACKERS] Is necessary to use SEQ_MAXVALUE in pg_dump?

2007-11-05 Thread Zdenek Kotala
I'm trying fix independence of pg_dump.c on postgres.h. And I found following construct in dumpSequence function: 09391 snprintf(bufm, sizeof(bufm), INT64_FORMAT, SEQ_MINVALUE); 09392 snprintf(bufx, sizeof(bufx), INT64_FORMAT, SEQ_MAXVALUE); 09393 09394 appendPQExpBuffer(query, 093

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.3

2007-11-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:47:10 -0500 (EST) > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In an attempt to move us toward 8.3 RC1 I have put all open item > > emails into the patches queue: > > > > http://momjian.pos

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.3

2007-11-05 Thread Gregory Stark
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:47:10 -0500 (EST) > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> In an attempt to move us toward 8.3 RC1 I have put all open item >> emails into the patches queue: >> >> http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches >>

[HACKERS] sending row data to frontend - reg

2007-11-05 Thread Rose Catherine K
Hi All, we are trying to modify the source code of postgresql to support a new command pivot we are doing the following steps: 1. After parsing the input, we are able to get the values entered by the user for column A , column B and tablename. 2. Then, from postgresmain, we call exec_simple_que

Re: [HACKERS] pg 8.3beta 2 restore db with autovacuum report

2007-11-05 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Guillaume Smet wrote: > I did the test again with the reference database I used a month ago. > > My previous figures with 8.3devel of October 1st were: > - autovacuum off: 14m39 > - autovacuum on, delay 20: 51m37 > > With 8.3devel of today, I have: > - autovacuum on, delay 20: 15m26 Yay! Thank

Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql 8.3 beta crash

2007-11-05 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> It still feels unsafe to call ExecEvalExpr while holding on to xml >> structs. It means that it's not safe for external modules to use >> libxml2 and call xmlMemSetup or xmlSetGenericErrorFunc themselves. > Well yeah, they

Re: [HACKERS] Is necessary to use SEQ_MAXVALUE in pg_dump?

2007-11-05 Thread Tom Lane
Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This construct is used to determine if max_value/min_value is used and > after that pg_dump add NO MAXVALUE to the output instead of the value. > If I compare it with manual documentation NO MAXVALUE uses default value > and I do not see any reason to

Re: [HACKERS] sending row data to frontend - reg

2007-11-05 Thread Tom Lane
"Rose Catherine K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > we are trying to modify the source code of postgresql to support a new > command pivot > we are doing the following steps: > 1. After parsing the input, we are able to get the values entered by the > user for column A , column B and tablename. > 2

Re: [HACKERS] Visibility map thoughts

2007-11-05 Thread Jeff Davis
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 09:52 +, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Reducing VACUUM time is important, but the real big promise is the > ability to do index-only-scans. Because that's the main focus of this > exercise, I'm calling it the the Visibility Map from now on, because > it's not about tracki

Re: [HACKERS] Is necessary to use SEQ_MAXVALUE in pg_dump?

2007-11-05 Thread Zdenek Kotala
Tom Lane wrote: A better solution might be to move the declarations of SEQ_MINVALUE/SEQ_MAXVALUE someplace else. Hmm. It seems better, but it is also hard to find correct place. :( I'm thinking put it into c.h. Another question why sequence does not have separate flag which determines if

Re: [HACKERS] Is necessary to use SEQ_MAXVALUE in pg_dump?

2007-11-05 Thread Tom Lane
Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> A better solution might be to move the declarations of >> SEQ_MINVALUE/SEQ_MAXVALUE someplace else. > Hmm. It seems better, but it is also hard to find correct place. :( I'm > thinking put it into c.h. The idea that was in the back o

Re: [HACKERS] should I worry?

2007-11-05 Thread Rick Gigger
Doesn't DROP TRIGGER require the name of the trigger? He says they are unnamed. How then does he drop them? On Nov 5, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Tom Lane wrote: So you have a *bunch* of partially broken FK constraints in that source

Re: [HACKERS] should I worry?

2007-11-05 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Rick Gigger wrote: Doesn't DROP TRIGGER require the name of the trigger? He says they are unnamed. How then does he drop them? They're not really unnamed. pg_dump just replaces the real name with "". -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

Re: [HACKERS] Visibility map thoughts

2007-11-05 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Though 8.3 isn't out of the oven just yet, I've been thinking about the > dead space map a lot, and decided I have to start writing down those > thoughts. I think we should do this at the same time as pushing the FSM out of shared memory, and desi

Re: [HACKERS] should I worry?

2007-11-05 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Rick Gigger wrote: >> Doesn't DROP TRIGGER require the name of the trigger? He says they are >> unnamed. How then does he drop them? > They're not really unnamed. pg_dump just replaces the real name with > "". And \d will show the real names of

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.3

2007-11-05 Thread Joshua D. Drake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:57:39 + Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:47:10 -0500 (EST) > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> In an attempt to move us t

Re: [HACKERS] Segmentation fault using digest from pg_crypto

2007-11-05 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Marko Kreen wrote: > > On 8/24/07, Manuel Sugawara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If something is not going a work (or is going a work in a different > > > way) in some version after loading a shot form a previous one I think > > > it should be documented or some kind of b

Re: [HACKERS] Segmentation fault using digest from pg_crypto

2007-11-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > If something is not going a work (or is going a work in a different > > > > way) in some version after loading a shot form a previous one I think > > > > it should be documented or some kind of backwards compatibility > > > > mechanism should be provided. > > > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Test lab

2007-11-05 Thread Mark Wong
On 11/4/07, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark, > > Why don't you post a TODO list for TPC-E somewhere, so people can bite > small pieces off of the list. I'm sure there's lots of people can help > if we do it that way. This should be a good start: http://osdldbt.sourceforge.net/dbt5/t

Re: [HACKERS] Visibility map thoughts

2007-11-05 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Jeff Davis wrote: On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 09:52 +, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: It's not useful for VACUUM FREEZE, unless we're willing to freeze much more aggressively, and change the meaning of a set bit to "all tuples on heap page are frozen". This means that a regular VACUUM will no longer

Re: [HACKERS] should I worry?

2007-11-05 Thread Rick Gigger
Ah, yes it was the quotes. I guess that makes me a newbie. :) On Nov 5, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Rick Gigger wrote: Doesn't DROP TRIGGER require the name of the trigger? He says they are unnamed. How then does he drop them? The

Re: [HACKERS] Visibility map thoughts

2007-11-05 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Though 8.3 isn't out of the oven just yet, I've been thinking about the dead space map a lot, and decided I have to start writing down those thoughts. I think we should do this at the same time as pushing the FSM out of shared mem

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql keywords are hidden reserved words

2007-11-05 Thread John DeSoi
On Nov 5, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote: I don't see any fix for this that's reasonable to try to shoehorn into 8.3, but I think we really need to revisit the whole area of plpgsql variable substitution during 8.4. We could make this problem go away if variable substitution happened throug

Re: [HACKERS] A small rant about coding style for backend functions

2007-11-05 Thread Brendan Jurd
On 11/6/07, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I understand your suggestions but it seems there would be too many > individual items to be readable. Can you suggest a full list so we can > get an idea of how long it would be? If the body of material on writing good Postgres code becomes

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.3

2007-11-05 Thread Jeremy Drake
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Gregory Stark wrote: > How many developers have even jumped through the hoops to get wiki accounts? According to http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&group=pgdev&limit=500 there are currently 51 members of the group "pgdev" on the wiki. -- "Spa

Re: [HACKERS] Open items for 8.3

2007-11-05 Thread Magnus Hagander
> > How many developers have even jumped through the hoops to get wiki accounts? > > According to > http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&group=pgdev&limit=500 > > there are currently 51 members of the group "pgdev" on the wiki. > Well, a lot of those people aren't a

Re: [HACKERS] Hash index todo list item

2007-11-05 Thread Shreya Bhargava
"Note that the bottom line for the problems with hash indexes is that the current implementation doesn't offer any advantages over btree indexes. Hash indexes need to be not only as good of a choice as btree indexes but significantly better a significantly better choice at least for some specific c

Re: [HACKERS] Visibility map thoughts

2007-11-05 Thread Gregory Stark
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > One problem is that you have to atomically update the visibility map when > you update the heap. That means that you have to lock the visibility map > page and the heap page at the same time. If the visibility map is in the > heap, you need to tak