2010/4/12 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
From the rest of your comments, I'm comfortable that you're in sync with the
not necessarily obvious risky spots here I wanted to raise awareness of.
It's unreasonable to
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Jaime Casanova
jcasa...@systemguards.com.ec wrote:
i'm startint to try Hot Standby Streaming Replication, so i started
a replication:
Great!
but, my main concern is why it was asking for
00010006? is this normal?
The standby server tries to
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Jaime Casanova
jcasa...@systemguards.com.ec wrote:
but, my main concern is why it was asking for
00010006? is this normal? is this standby's way of
saying i'm working but i have nothing to do?
when that happens after a standby restart, is normal
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Didn't the standby
accept connections before executing pgbench?
nop, and last time i try it was in that state for an hour (without
accepting connections)... after that i execute on the primary: CREATE
TABLE tt2 AS SELECT
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Jaime Casanova
jcasa...@systemguards.com.ec wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Didn't the standby
accept connections before executing pgbench?
nop, and last time i try it was in that state for an hour (without
Martijn van Oosterhout írta:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 02:36:41PM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
The above is quite reproducable, pg_ctl stop -m immediate
usually inflated my serial sequence, but I had two occasions
when not. The 69 - 70 was one. The inflated increase is always 33:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Erik Rijkers e...@xs4all.nl wrote:
I understand that in the scale=1000 case, there is a huge
cache effect, but why doesn't that apply to the pgbench runs
against the standby? (and for the scale=10_000 case the
differences are still rather large)
I guess that
Fujii Masao wrote:
doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
-archival or to recover from a checkpoint. If standby_keep_segments
+archival or to recover from a checkpoint. If
varnamestandby_keep_segments/
The word standby_keep_segments always needs the varname tag, I think.
Thanks, fixed.
Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Jaime Casanova
jcasa...@systemguards.com.ec wrote:
but, my main concern is why it was asking for
00010006? is this normal? is this standby's way of
saying i'm working but i have nothing to do?
Yes.
when that happens
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
I am sure so
dynamical materialised views is bad task for GSoC - it is too large,
too complex. Manually refreshed views is adequate to two months work
and it has sense.
That is my feeling also - though I fear that
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 5:06 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Erik Rijkers e...@xs4all.nl wrote:
I understand that in the scale=1000 case, there is a huge
cache effect, but why doesn't that apply to the pgbench runs
against the standby? (and for
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
If it does, there should be
some way to get PGXS to execute that rule as well, I'm sure.
If we can copy/link the source file defining new PQexec when
we compile the dblink, DLL doesn't seem to be required. So I
stop
On Sat, April 10, 2010 01:23, Erik Rijkers wrote:
Using 9.0devel cvs HEAD, 2010.04.08.
I am trying to understand the performance difference
between primary and standby under a standard pgbench
read-only test.
server has 32 GB, 2 quadcores.
primary:
tps = 34606.747930 (including
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 5:06 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Erik Rijkers e...@xs4all.nl wrote:
I understand that in the scale=1000 case, there is a huge
cache effect, but
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
We should remove the document 25.2.5.2. Monitoring?
I updated it to no longer claim that the primary can run out of disk
space because of a hung WAL sender. The information about calculating
the lag
On Mon, April 12, 2010 14:22, Erik Rijkers wrote:
On Sat, April 10, 2010 01:23, Erik Rijkers wrote:
Oops, typos in that pseudo loop:
of course there was a pgbench init step after that first line.
for scale in 10 100 500 1000
pgbench ... # initialise
sleep ((scale / 10) * 60)
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Why is standby_keep_segments used even if max_wal_senders is zero?
In that case, ISTM we don't need to keep any WAL files in pg_xlog
for the standby.
True. I don't think we should second guess the
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Jim Mlodgenski jimm...@gmail.com wrote:
I think we need to investigate this more. It's not going to look good
for the project if people find that a hot standby server runs two
orders of magnitude slower than the primary.
As a data point, I did a read only
* Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com [100412 07:10]:
I think we need to investigate this more. It's not going to look good
for the project if people find that a hot standby server runs two
orders of magnitude slower than the primary.
Yes, it's not good, but it's a known problem. We've had
And I see now that he's doing a stream of read-only queries on a slave,
presumably with no WAL even being replayed...
Sorry for the noise
a.
* Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca [100412 09:40]:
* Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com [100412 07:10]:
I think we need to investigate this more.
Aidan Van Dyk ai...@highrise.ca wrote:
We've had people complaining that wal-replay can't keep up with a
wal stream from a heavy server.
I thought this thread was about the slow performance running a mix
of read-only queries on the slave versus the master, which doesn't
seem to have anything
resending this message, as it seems to have bounced.
(below, I did fix the typo in the pseudocode loop)
Original Message
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
From:Erik Rijkers
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:48 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Jaime Casanova
jcasa...@systemguards.com.ec wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Didn't the standby
accept connections before executing
The patch I sent earlier is flaud with respect to subplan parameter
numbering, I counted from zero where the parParam list had to be used.
Yeb Havinga wrote:
See patch below against HEAD.
Example of query against catalog:
postgres=# explain verbose select oid::int + 1,(select oid from
Fujii Masao wrote:
If adding new shared library is too big change at this point, I think
that we should postpone the fix only for dblink to 9.1 or later. Since
no one has complained about this long-term problem of dblink, I'm not
sure it really should be fixed right now. Thought?
I would
I just did a checkout from HEAD (a few minutes ago) and ran this:
make distclean ; ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/pgsql-serializable
--enable-integer-datetimes --enable-debug --enable-cassert
--enable-depend --with-libxml make check
I got a failure on the random test. Unfortunately I didn't
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Jaime Casanova
jcasa...@systemguards.com.ec wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:48 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Jaime Casanova
jcasa...@systemguards.com.ec wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Fujii Masao
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 13:54, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
If it does, there should be
some way to get PGXS to execute that rule as well, I'm sure.
If we can copy/link the source file defining new PQexec
On 4/9/10 1:36 PM, pavelbaros wrote:
2) change rewriter
- usually, view is relation with defined rule and when rewriting, rule
is fired and relation (view) is replaced by definition of view. If
relation do not have rule, planner and executor behave to it as physical
table (relation). In case
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 4/9/10 1:36 PM, pavelbaros wrote:
2) change rewriter
- usually, view is relation with defined rule and when rewriting, rule
is fired and relation (view) is replaced by definition of view. If
relation do not have rule,
Josh Berkus wrote:
There are basically 2 major parts for materialized views:
A) Planner: Getting the query planner to swap in the MatView for part of
a query automatically for query plan portions which the MatView supports;
B) Maintenance: maintaining the MatView data according to the programmed
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
There are basically 2 major parts for materialized views:
A) Planner: Getting the query planner to swap in the MatView for part of
a query automatically for query plan portions which the MatView
On 4/10/10 7:00 AM, Jean-Gérard Pailloncy wrote:
Hello,
1) VPD: Virtual Private Database
I would appreciate to have a new feature in PostgreSQL.
This is an oracle-like feature that implement Row Level Security.
This feature may be emulated by using VIEW/RULE but this is very time
consuming
Greg,
I'm not saying someone can't jump right into (3), using the current
implementations for (1) and (2) that are floating around out there. I
just think it would end up wasting a fair amount of work on prototypes
that don't work quite the same way as the eventual fully integrated
version.
Josh Berkus wrote:
What would be the use case for (1) by itself?
There isn't any use case for just working on the infrastructure, just
like there's no use case for Syntax for partitioning on its own. That
why people rarely work on that part of these problems--it's boring and
produces no
FYI, I think Michael Meskes applied this patch, though I didn't see you
emailed that it was applied.
---
Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
Hi,
here's a little beautified patch:
- more logical parameter order in
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
If adding new shared library is too big change at this point, I think
that we should postpone the fix only for dblink to 9.1 or later. Since
no one has complained about this long-term problem of dblink, I'm not
sure it
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 22:12 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
How about we call it exclusivity constraints.
Not much of a change, but helps to differentiate.
Well, the keyword is EXCLUDE so we could call it EXCLUDE contraints.
If that is the
I don't want to see Materialized Views wander down the same path as
partitioning, where lots of people produce fun parts patches, while
ignoring the grunt work of things like production quality catalog
support for the feature. I think Pavel's proposal got that part right
by starting with
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Jaime Casanova
jcasa...@systemguards.com.ec wrote:
1. start the primary
2. pg_start_backup()
3. copy $PGDATA from the primary to the standby
4. pg_stop_backup();
5. create the recovery.conf and start the standby
execute some WAL-logged action (i've seen
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 22:12 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
How about we call it exclusivity constraints.
Not much of a change, but helps to differentiate.
Well, the keyword
Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 22:12 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
How about we call it exclusivity constraints.
Not much of a change, but helps to
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 22:12 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
How about we call it
Hello:
I am brand new to Postgresql.
I ran the following commands.
./configure
gmake
su
gmake install
adduser postgres
mkdir /usr/local/pgsql/data
chown postgres /usr/local/pgsql/data
su - postgres
/usr/local/pgsql/bin/initdb -D /usr/local/pgsql/data
/usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster -D
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 08:31:38PM -0700, Murali M. Krishna wrote:
Hello:
I am brand new to Postgresql.
I ran the following commands.
./configure
gmake
su
gmake install
adduser postgres
mkdir /usr/local/pgsql/data
chown postgres
Yes, he applied the first version without seeing this one,
then he asked for a re-diff privately.
Bruce Momjian írta:
FYI, I think Michael Meskes applied this patch, though I didn't see you
emailed that it was applied.
Josh Berkus wrote:
I just worry about any feature which doesn't get as far as a
user-visible implementation. If someone doesn't do the rest of the
parts soon, such features tend to atrophy because nobody is using them.
While they're limited, there are complexly viable prototype quality
The OS is
Fedora 12.
-
Please visit NumberFest.com for educational number puzzles mind exercises for
all ages! And please tell your friends about it. Thank You!
--- On Mon, 4/12/10, to...@tuxteam.de to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
I could reproduce this on my laptop, standby is about 20% slower. I ran
oprofile, and what stands out as the difference between the master and
standby is that on standby about 20% of the CPU time is spent in
hash_seq_search(). The callpath is GetSnapshotDat() -
KnownAssignedXidsGetAndSetXmin() -
49 matches
Mail list logo