On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
- If a WAL file is not found in the master for some reason, standby goes
into an infinite loop retrying it:
ERROR: could not read xlog records: FATAL: could not open file
KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
We have to reference pg_largeobject_metadata to check whether a certain
large objct exists, or not.
It is a case when we create a new large object, but write nothing.
OK, that makes sense.
In addition of the patch, we also need to fix
Takahiro Itagaki itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp wrote:
In addition of the patch, we also need to fix pg_restore with
--clean option. I added DropBlobIfExists() in pg_backup_db.c.
A revised patch attached. Please check further mistakes.
...and here is an additional fix for contrib modules.
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Greg Smith (g...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
I personally feel that Steven
Frost's recent comments here about how the PostgreSQL code makes this
harder than it should be really cuts to the core of a next step here.
The problem facing us isn't is SEPostgreSQL the
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 05:45, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
My guess is that a credible SEPostgres offering will require a long-term
amount of work at least equal to, and very
Tom,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
It's been perfectly clear since day one, and was reiterated as recently
as today
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4b21757e.7090...@2ndquadrant.com
that what the security community wants is row-level security.
Yes, they do want row-level
Richard Huxton wrote:
Reworked jquery-based document menu is attached.
Untar will produce bin/ and html/
cd .../html
cp /path/to/htmldocs/* .
../bin/add_js.pl *html
The contents should be on almost all relevant pages, and:
- tested on FF3.5, IE7, Opera 9.x
- expanded if screen width 800px,
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 05:45, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
My guess is that a credible SEPostgres
KaiGai,
* KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote:
(1) Whether the framework should host the default PG model, not only
enhanced security features, or not?
This patch tried to host both of the default PG model and SELinux.
But, the default PG model does not have same origin with
--On 10. Dezember 2009 23:55:49 -0500 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
wrote:
If there's some real-world test where this probe costs 0.3%-0.4%, I
think that is sufficient grounds for rejecting this patch. I
understand the desire of people to be able to use dtrace, but our
performance is
Bernd Helmle escribió:
I repeated the pgbench runs per Greg's advice (see upthread) and it
seems there is actually a small slowdown which supports this
argument, unfortunately. After repeating the pgbench runs with and
without the new probes (note: i've used the new version of the
patch,
2009/12/11 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
It tried to provide a set of comprehensive entry points to replace existing
PG checks at once.
However, the SE-PgSQL/Lite patch covers accesses on only database, schema,
tables and columns. Is it necessary to be comprehensive from the beginning?
Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Jaime Casanova
jcasa...@systemguards.com.ec wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
My bet is that the real problem was a build inconsistency in
the backend. Does make distclean and rebuild make
Stephen Frost wrote:
Tom,
snip
The
proposals to make SEPostgres drive regular SQL permissions never came
out of anyone from that side, they were proposed by PG people looking
for a manageable first step.
I do not believe this to be accurate. Josh, were you able to find any
public
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 09:20 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 05:45, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Tom Lane
Robert Haas wrote:
One comment I have in general about this process is that I think it
would enormously reduce the level of pain associated with making these
kinds of changes if we could get patches that were not full of minor
issues that need to be cleaned up (like comments not properly
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Yes, but what if you test with the broken pgbench? As Tom says, it
should not be able to crash the backend no matter what it does.
The crash is real --- I've replicated it here. Still trying to figure
out what is the real cause.
Stephen Frost wrote:
KaiGai,
* KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote:
(1) Whether the framework should host the default PG model, not only
enhanced security features, or not?
This patch tried to host both of the default PG model and SELinux.
But, the default PG model does not
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 09:32 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
2009/12/11 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
It tried to provide a set of comprehensive entry points to replace existing
PG checks at once.
However, the SE-PgSQL/Lite patch covers accesses on only database, schema,
tables and columns.
On 12/11/09, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Yes, but what if you test with the broken pgbench? As Tom says, it
should not be able to crash the backend no matter what it does.
The crash is real --- I've replicated it here. Still
Greg Smith wrote:
It's funny; we started out this CommitFest with me scrambling to find
someone, anyone, willing to review the latest SE-PostgreSQL patch,
knowing it was a big job and few were likely to volunteer. Then
schedules lined up just right, and last night I managed to get a great
group
Magnus,
* Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 05:45, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
It's been perfectly clear since day one, and was reiterated as recently
as today
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4b21757e.7090...@2ndquadrant.com
that what
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 08:56 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
[snip...]
I do assume we're going to do row level security, but I do not feel that
we need to particularly put one in front of the other. I also feel that
SEPG will be valuable even without row-level security. One of the
realms that we
KaiGai Kohei wrote:
Takahiro Itagaki wrote:
KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Takahiro Itagaki itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp writes:
structnamepg_largeobject/structname should not be readable by the
public, since the catalog contains data in large
--On 11. Dezember 2009 11:28:54 -0300 Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
without compiled probes: AVG(2531.68)
with compiled probes: AVG(2511.97)
Were the probes enabled?
Hmm, they were just compiled in, i didn't anything to instrument them with
dtrace.
I've just
David,
* David P. Quigley (dpqu...@tycho.nsa.gov) wrote:
So I downloaded and read through the PCI DSS document (74 pages is
pretty light compared to NFSv4.1 hehe...) and There are several areas
there where I think strong access controls in the database will not only
fulfill the requirement
* David P. Quigley (dpqu...@tycho.nsa.gov) wrote:
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 09:32 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I think that we should try to move the PG default checks inside the
hook functions. If we can't do that cleanly, it's a good sign that
the hook functions are not correctly placed to
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:07 AM, David P. Quigley
dpqu...@tycho.nsa.gov wrote:
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 09:32 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
2009/12/11 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
It tried to provide a set of comprehensive entry points to replace existing
PG checks at once.
However, the
Joshua Brindle wrote:
Greg Smith wrote:
It's funny; we started out this CommitFest with me scrambling to find
someone, anyone, willing to review the latest SE-PostgreSQL patch,
knowing it was a big job and few were likely to volunteer. Then
schedules lined up just right, and last night I
KaiGai,
* KaiGai Kohei (kai...@kaigai.gr.jp) wrote:
As Rober Haas already suggested in another message, my patch in the last
commit fest is too large. It tried to rework anything in a single patch.
The per-object-type basis make sense for me.
Agreed.
In my cosmetic preference, ace_ is
Greg,
* Greg Smith (g...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
I think we need a two pronged attack on this issue. Eventually I think
someone who wants this feature in there will need to sponsor someone
(and not even necessarily a coder) to do a sizable round of plain old
wording cleanup on the
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
I'll stop here because I see that Stephen Frost has just sent an
insightful email on this topic as well. Hmm, maybe that's the Steve
you were referring to.
I have doubts- but then I don't ever see my comments as insightful for
some reason. ;)
Robert Haas escreveu:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Takahiro Itagaki
itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp wrote:
Anyway, a revised patch according to the comments is attached.
The new text format is:
Buffers: shared hit=675 read=968, temp read=1443 written=1443
* Zero values are omitted.
KaiGai Kohei wrote:
We use SELECT loid FROM pg_largeobject LIMIT 1 in pg_dump. We could
replace pg_largeobject_metadata instead if we try to fix only pg_dump,
but it's no wonder that any other user applications use such queries.
I think to allow reading loid is a balanced solution.
Bruce Momjian さんは書きました:
KaiGai Kohei wrote:
Takahiro Itagaki wrote:
KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Takahiro Itagaki itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp writes:
structnamepg_largeobject/structname should not be readable by the
public, since the catalog contains
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:07 AM, David P. Quigley
dpqu...@tycho.nsa.gov wrote:
The main concern I hear is that people are worried that this is an
SELinux specific design. I heard at the meeting on Wednesday that the
Trusted Extensions people looked at the framework and said it meets
their
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 11:28 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
[snip...]
The main concern I hear is that people are worried that this is an
SELinux specific design. I heard at the meeting on Wednesday that the
Trusted Extensions people looked at the framework and said it meets
their needs as
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 11:16 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
David,
* David P. Quigley (dpqu...@tycho.nsa.gov) wrote:
So I downloaded and read through the PCI DSS document (74 pages is
pretty light compared to NFSv4.1 hehe...) and There are several areas
there where I think strong access
Bernd Helmle píše v pá 11. 12. 2009 v 17:13 +0100:
--On 11. Dezember 2009 11:28:54 -0300 Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
without compiled probes: AVG(2531.68)
with compiled probes: AVG(2511.97)
Were the probes enabled?
Hmm, they were just compiled in, i didn't
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 11:36 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
[Snip...]
In addition, OS allows to choose one enhanced security at most eventually.
In my image, the hook should be as:
Value *
ac_database_create([arguments ...])
{
/*
* The default PG checks here.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Zdenek Kotala zdenek.kot...@sun.com wrote:
Bernd Helmle píše v pá 11. 12. 2009 v 17:13 +0100:
--On 11. Dezember 2009 11:28:54 -0300 Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
without compiled probes: AVG(2531.68)
with compiled probes: AVG(2511.97)
Robert Haas píše v čt 10. 12. 2009 v 23:55 -0500:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Zdenek Kotala zdenek.kot...@sun.com wrote:
But in normal situation database does also other thing and palloc is
only one part of code path. It is why I run second test and use sun
studio profiling tools
Robert Haas píše v pá 11. 12. 2009 v 12:55 -0500:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Zdenek Kotala zdenek.kot...@sun.com wrote:
Bernd Helmle píše v pá 11. 12. 2009 v 17:13 +0100:
--On 11. Dezember 2009 11:28:54 -0300 Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
without compiled
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 01:19 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tor, 2009-11-12 at 16:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
There was considerable debate earlier about whether we wanted to treat
Python 3 as a separate PL so it could be available in parallel with
plpython 2, because of the user-level
I wrote:
The crash is real --- I've replicated it here. Still trying to figure
out what is the real cause.
Okay, I've sussed it. The crash itself is due to a memory management
mistake in the recently-rewritten EvalPlanQual code (pfree'ing a tuple
that we still have live Datum references to).
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Zdenek Kotala zdenek.kot...@sun.com wrote:
We know that performance impact is less then 1% probably less then 0.6%.
The question is if it is acceptable or not. I personally think that it
is acceptable. However if not, I will start work on backup solution with
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 11:30 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
[snip...]
I'll stop here because I see that Stephen Frost has just sent an
insightful email on this topic as well. Hmm, maybe that's the Steve
you were referring to.
...Robert
Yea I never asked Stephen if he goes by Stephen or Steve
Stephen Frost wrote:
KaiGai,
snip
I do think that, technically, there's no reason we couldn't allow for
multiple only-more-restrictive models to be enabled and built in a
single binary for systems which support it. As such, I would make those
just #if defined() rather than #elif. Let it be
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
I actually have an idea how to solve the problem in this particular
case, but I'm reluctant to say what it is because I'm not sure if I'm
right, and at any rate *I don't want to write this patch*.
As far as crap goes, I'd have to put this
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
As far as I am concerned that is way too much, particularly
considering that your test case isn't designed to be particularly
memory-allocation intensive, and if it is up to me I will reject this.
Even a quarter-percent slowdown for a feature that
All,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
If we design a security abstraction layer, the interfaces need to
really be abstraction boundaries. Passing the table OID and then also
the tablespace OID because PG DAC needs that to make its access
control decision is crap.
Now, to
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I thought we had an idea of using the AllocSet dispatch mechanism to
make this zero-overhead in the case where the probes are not enabled.
What happened to that notion?
I must have missed that discussion, but +1 --- should be possible to get
to
Tom Lane wrote:
Also, the reason why Bruce's mistake exposed this is interesting.
Omitting the #define for ENABLE_THREAD_SAFETY does not actually break
pgbench -j at all -- it has a fallback strategy that uses multiple
subprocesses instead of multiple threads. However, it has only one
srandom()
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
It sounds like random pgbench run for a while would certainly expose the
same thing you're concerned about eventually.
Yeah. Actually the odd thing about it is that the crash seemed to
invariably be on conflicting pgbench_accounts updates, which is a
Tom Lane píše v pá 11. 12. 2009 v 13:56 -0500:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
As far as I am concerned that is way too much, particularly
considering that your test case isn't designed to be particularly
memory-allocation intensive, and if it is up to me I will reject this.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
I actually have an idea how to solve the problem in this particular
case, but I'm reluctant to say what it is because I'm not sure if I'm
right, and at any rate *I don't want
Tom Lane píše v pá 11. 12. 2009 v 14:38 -0500:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I thought we had an idea of using the AllocSet dispatch mechanism to
make this zero-overhead in the case where the probes are not enabled.
What happened to that notion?
I must have missed that
David,
* David P. Quigley (dpqu...@tycho.nsa.gov) wrote:
So the document I read is linked below [1].
Great, thanks again.
[agree with all the rest]
It is definitely good to have a second opinion on this since I've just
only started reading the PCI compliance documents. I'm definitely not an
* David P. Quigley (dpqu...@tycho.nsa.gov) wrote:
Yea I never asked Stephen if he goes by Stephen or Steve when I met him
on Wednesday. I guess calling him Steve is me being a bit
presumptuous :)
Oh, either is fine, tho people will probably follow a bit better if you
say Stephen. As a
Zdenek Kotala zdenek.kot...@sun.com writes:
I thought about it. I think we can use GUC variable (e.g. dtraced_alloc)
and hook switch pointers to dtraced AsetFunctions. The problem is how to
distribute to all backend.
You set the GUC in postgresql.conf. No big deal.
If we go this route it
Josh,
* Joshua Brindle (met...@manicmethod.com) wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
I do think that, technically, there's no reason we couldn't allow for
multiple only-more-restrictive models to be enabled and built in a
single binary for systems which support it. As such, I would make those
just
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Second, the information we *don't* have from above is generally
information about what the requesting action is. For example, when
changing ownership of an object, we can't possibly use introspection to
find out the role
I wrote:
... What I would have expected is crashes on the very
similar updates to pgbench_branches, which is designed to be
high-contention. It might be that there is some other effect going on
here that explains why that wasn't happening. Need to go back and look
more closely.
... and the
Tom Lane píše v pá 11. 12. 2009 v 15:11 -0500:
Zdenek Kotala zdenek.kot...@sun.com writes:
I thought about it. I think we can use GUC variable (e.g. dtraced_alloc)
and hook switch pointers to dtraced AsetFunctions. The problem is how to
distribute to all backend.
You set the GUC in
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 14:11 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
All,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
If we design a security abstraction layer, the interfaces need to
really be abstraction boundaries. Passing the table OID and then also
the tablespace OID because PG DAC needs that
Takahiro Itagaki itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp writes:
While testing the pgbench setshell command patch with -j option,
I found all threads use the same sequence of random value.
Were they actually threads, or were you testing the code while it had
the broken configure script that didn't set
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
OK, it's clear that I've handled this badly. Sorry. My fear (however
unjustified) was that someone would go and rewrite the patch based on
an opinion that I express whether they agree with it or not.
That's always going to be a risk in an
Zdenek Kotala zdenek.kot...@sun.com writes:
Tom Lane pÃÅ¡e v pá 11. 12. 2009 v 15:11 -0500:
If we go this route it would be nice to think about making a facility
that has some usefulness for non-DTrace platforms too.
Do you mean general facility for switching memory allocator?
No, I was
I wrote:
Takahiro Itagaki itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp writes:
http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man3/random_r.3.html
It only says that you need those if you want an *independent* random
sequence for each thread. pgbench never had that before and I doubt
we need it now. In
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Second, the information we *don't* have from above is generally
information about what the requesting action is. For example, when
changing ownership of an object, we can't
On Thursday 10 December 2009 21:47:18 KaiGai Kohei wrote:
Greg Smith wrote:
It's funny; we started out this CommitFest with me scrambling to find
someone, anyone, willing to review the latest SE-PostgreSQL patch,
knowing it was a big job and few were likely to volunteer. Then
schedules
Stephen (great name!),
* Stephen Smalley (s...@tycho.nsa.gov) wrote:
Reference:
http://www.usenix.org/event/sec02/wright.html
http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.32/include/linux/security.h
The XACE framework for the X server is described by:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
I sincerely hope that even if you suggest an approach down the road
unrelated to this on some other patch you're reviewing, and then you see
the results and say whoah, that's horrible, and should never be
committed, that
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Hrm, I thought I had given a specific example. Didn't do a good job of
it, apparently. Let me try to be a bit more clear:
ALTER TABLE x OWNER TO y;
If given the table OID, there's a ton of information we can then pull
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
If I don't tell
you how to write the patch, you can't accuse me of moving the
goalposts (of course I've now discovered the pitfalls of that approach
as well...).
Indeed, we also yell and scream when we don't know which direction the
goalposts are
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Does that help clarify my example case?
That case doesn't seem terribly problematic to me. It seems clear
that we'll want to pass some information about both x and y. What
Stephen Frost wrote:
I agree with this- one issue is, unfortunately, an overabundance from
KaiGai of code-writing man-power. This is an odd situation for this
community, in general, so we're having a hard time coming to grasp with
it.
There are plenty of parallels to when Zdenek was writing a
Tom Lane wrote:
It's amazing to me that we've never
gone back and improved on the original quick-and-dirty
MemoryContextStats mechanism. I certainly find myself using that a
lot for issues like tracking down memory leaks.
That code hasn't really gone anywhere since Neil tweaked the indentation
I just did a round of integrating some of the big-picture feedback that
has shown up here since the meeting into
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SEPostgreSQL_Review_at_the_BWPUG ,
mainly supplementing the references in the Works outside of SELinux
section with the new suggested reading here
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Does that help clarify my example case?
That case doesn't seem terribly problematic to me. It seems
Stephen Frost wrote:
In my cosmetic preference, ace_ is better than ac_. The 'e' means
extendable, and ace feels like something cool. :-)
No complaints here.. I just hope this doesn't end up being *exactly*
the same as your original PGACE patches.. I'd feel terrible if we
weren't able to
Stephen Frost wrote:
Josh,
* Joshua Brindle (met...@manicmethod.com) wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
I do think that, technically, there's no reason we couldn't allow for
multiple only-more-restrictive models to be enabled and built in a
single binary for systems which support it. As such, I
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
What exactly do you mean by a SubOID? I'm not really following that part.
I assume he's talking about the object reference representation used in
pg_depend, which is actually class OID + object OID + sub-object ID.
The only object type that has
Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Hrm, I thought I had given a specific example. Didn't do a good job of
it, apparently. Let me try to be a bit more clear:
ALTER TABLE x OWNER TO y;
If given the table OID, there's a ton of
I'm not quite sure where we stand with these two patches. My
impression is that many of the outstanding TODO items in Hot Standby
have been fixed, and I'm not sure what remains. Streaming Replication
I think reviewing is not as far advanced, but I'm not sure. Any
chance that Hot Standby can get
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 13:05, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
I'll be happy to work on this to get it ready for commit, or do you
want to do the updates?
Here's a patch with my work
Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Unlike Tom (I think), I do believe that there is demand (possibly only
from a limited number of people, but demand all the same) for this
feature.
Please note that I do not think there is *zero* demand for the feature.
There is
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Zdenek Kotala zdenek.kot...@sun.com writes:
Tom Lane píše v pá 11. 12. 2009 v 15:11 -0500:
If we go this route it would be nice to think about making a facility
that has some usefulness for non-DTrace platforms too.
Do you
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I am not replying to many of these emails so I don't appear to be
brow-beating (forcing) the community into accepting this features. I
might be brow-beating the community, but I don't want to _appear_ to be
brow-beating.
Ron Mayer wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Well, the bottom line is that this effort should grow the development
and user community of Postgres --- it if doesn't, it is a failure.
Really? Even if it only allows existing Postgres users and companies to
expand their use into higher security
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Well, the bottom line is that this effort should grow the development
and user community of Postgres --- it if doesn't, it is a failure.
Really? Even if it only allows existing Postgres users and companies to
expand their use into higher security applications IMHO it's a
I am thinking about starting with the following TODO item:
-- Have EXPLAIN ANALYZE issue NOTICE messages when the estimated and actual
row counts differ by a specified percentage.
I picked this because it is somewhat related to query processing which is what I am
most interested in. It also
Ashish wrote:
I am thinking about starting with the following TODO item:
-- Have EXPLAIN ANALYZE issue NOTICE messages when the estimated
and actual row counts differ by a specified percentage.
I picked this because it is somewhat related to query processing
which is what I am most
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
eu...@timbira.com wrote:
Robert Haas escreveu:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Takahiro Itagaki
itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp wrote:
Anyway, a revised patch according to the comments is attached.
The new text format is:
Buffers:
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
It's amazing to me that we've never
gone back and improved on the original quick-and-dirty
MemoryContextStats mechanism.
That code hasn't really gone anywhere since Neil tweaked the indentation
two years ago. What sorts of
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Ashish abin...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I am thinking about starting with the following TODO item:
-- Have EXPLAIN ANALYZE issue NOTICE messages when the estimated and actual
row counts differ by a specified percentage.
I picked this because it is somewhat
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Ashish wrote:
I am thinking about starting with the following TODO item:
-- Have EXPLAIN ANALYZE issue NOTICE messages when the estimated
and actual row counts differ by a specified percentage.
I picked this because it
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 20:38 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I'm not quite sure where we stand with these two patches. My
impression is that many of the outstanding TODO items in Hot Standby
have been fixed, and I'm not sure what remains. Streaming Replication
I think reviewing is not as far
Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Ashish wrote:
I am thinking about starting with the following TODO item:
-- Have EXPLAIN ANALYZE issue NOTICE messages when the estimated
and actual row counts differ by a specified percentage.
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Ashish wrote:
I am thinking about starting with the following TODO item:
-- Have EXPLAIN ANALYZE issue NOTICE messages when the estimated
and actual row counts differ by a specified percentage.
I even have a sample patch you can use as a start,
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
