> I'm pretty sure we wouldn't accept a patch for a feature that would
> only work with wal_level=minimal, but it might be a useful starting
> point for someone else to keep hacking on.
I understand.
Reading your post at
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-01/msg00315.php
I thoug
bricklen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 10:01 PM, bricklen wrote:
> > Update on the status of the steps we took, which were:
> > - test on a hot standby by bringing it live, running the script,
> > determing the missing clog files, copying them into the live (hot
> > standby) pg_clog dir
> >
> >
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Why is it important to have the original pg_clog files around? Since
> the transactions in question are below the freeze horizon, surely the
> tuples that involve those transaction have all been visited by vacuum
> and thus removed if they were leftover from aborted tran
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > We've got more work to do before that works, so I have committed what we
> > have. Some symbols have disappeared, some because of code changes and some
> > probably because Cygwin has changed the way it does objdump. T
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > Why is it important to have the original pg_clog files around? Since
> > the transactions in question are below the freeze horizon, surely the
> > tuples that involve those transaction have all been visited by vacuum
> > and thus removed if the
2011/3/24 Jim Nasby :
> On Mar 22, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Cédric Villemain wrote:
>> 2011/3/22 Greg Stark :
>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
Has anyone looked at the overhead of measuring how long IO requests to the
kernel take? If we did that not only could we get an i
On Thursday, March 24, 2011 06:32:10 PM Jim Nasby wrote:
> Is there an equivalent in other OSes?
Some have mincore which can be used for that in combination with mmap.
Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.po
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> >
>> > Why is it important to have the original pg_clog files around? Since
>> > the transactions in question are below the freeze horizon, surely the
>> > tuples that involve those transaction
On 9 April 2011 00:41, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Brendan Jurd's message of vie abr 08 06:00:22 -0300 2011:
>> Memtest didn't report any errors. I intend to try swapping out the
>> RAM tomorrow, but in the meantime we got a *different* assertion
>> failure today. The fact that we are
This seems like a place where there is room for improvement.
2011-04-09 15:18:08.016 testdb=# select id from test1 where id < 3 order
by id;
id
1
2
(2 rows)
Time: 0.328 ms
2011-04-09 15:18:11.936 testdb=# CREATE or Replace FUNCTION testsort(id
integer) returns integer as $$ BEGIN pe
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 02:10:56PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Muhammad Usama writes:
> > While using the vacuumlo utility I encountered a redundant carriage
> > return(\r') character in the output. It is required in any scenario? If not,
> > please find attached a tiny patch which will get rid of th
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 03:22:14PM +0200, Jesper Krogh wrote:
> This seems like a place where there is room for improvement.
>
> 2011-04-09 15:18:08.016 testdb=# select id from test1 where id < 3
> order by id;
> id
>
> 1
> 2
> (2 rows)
>
> Time: 0.328 ms
> 2011-04-09 15:18:11.936 testd
>
> How would PostgreSQL know that sorting by id leaves no ambiguity for
> the next key to address?
It wouldn't But it could postpone evaluation until ambiguity was actually
met.
Jesper
>
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subsc
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 09:17:10AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> > 2011-04-09 15:18:22.138 testdb=# select id from test1 where id < 3
> > order by id,testsort(id);
> > id
> >
> > 1
> > 2
> > (2 rows)
> >
> > Time: 3001.896 ms
> >
> > It seems strange that there is a need to evaluate tes
On 09.04.2011 19:17, David Fetter wrote:
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 03:22:14PM +0200, Jesper Krogh wrote:
This seems like a place where there is room for improvement.
2011-04-09 15:18:08.016 testdb=# select id from test1 where id< 3
order by id;
id
1
2
(2 rows)
Time: 0.328 ms
2011-0
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 09:17:10AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
>>> It seems strange that there is a need to evaluate testsort(id) at
>>> all in this case.
>> How would PostgreSQL know that sorting by id leaves no ambiguity for
>> the next key to address?
> Well, i
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> If we were actually trying to support such large allocations,
>> what I'd be inclined to do is introduce a separate call along the lines
>> of MemoryContextAllocLarge() that lacks the safety check.
> This sounds like the right ap
All,
We left this out of 9.0; let's not leave it out of 9.1. We need an example
"replication" line in pg_hba.conf, commented out. e.g.
# host replication all samenet md5
Also, what happened to having a "replication" user defined by default? We
talked this to death last year, I tho
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 19:29, Joshua Berkus wrote:
> All,
>
> We left this out of 9.0; let's not leave it out of 9.1. We need an example
> "replication" line in pg_hba.conf, commented out. e.g.
>
> # host replication all samenet md5
>
> Also, what happened to having a "replication" us
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 07:24:15PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 09.04.2011 19:17, David Fetter wrote:
> >On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 03:22:14PM +0200, Jesper Krogh wrote:
> >>This seems like a place where there is room for improvement.
> >>
> >>2011-04-09 15:18:08.016 testdb=# select id from t
All,
If I have the following line in pg_hba.conf:
hostreplication replication all md5
pg_basebackup -x -v -P -h master1 -U replication -D $PGDATA
pg_basebackup: could not connect to server: FATAL: no pg_hba.conf entry for
replication connection from host
Magnus, all:
It seems a bit annoying to have to do an rm -rf * $PGDATA/ before resynching a
standby using pg_basebackup. This means that I still need to wrap basebackup
in a shell script, instead of having it do everything for me ... especially if
I have multiple tablespaces.
Couldn't we have
On 2011-04-09 20:00, David Fetter wrote:
Given the horrors query generators perpetrate, it might be worth
dropping provably redundant ORDER BYs on the floor at planning time.
Well, many people often add a secondary sort-key to their SQL
for the only purpose of obtainting a consistent result in t
On 2011-04-09 18:54, Tom Lane wrote:
I think that would be a positive disimprovement. The current design
guarantees that volatile sort expressions are evaluated exactly once,
in the order the rows are read from the data source. There would be no
guarantees at all, either as to the number of eval
On 10 April 2011 04:23, Joshua Berkus wrote:
> If I have the following line in pg_hba.conf:
>
> host replication replication all md5
>
> pg_basebackup -x -v -P -h master1 -U replication -D $PGDATA
> pg_basebackup: could not connect to server: FATAL: no pg_hb
On fre, 2011-04-08 at 20:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Given that this display doesn't include any encoding column, I'm
> thinking that the intention was to show only relevant collation
> entries.
> Which we could do by adding a WHERE clause about the encoding.
> If the intention was to not restrict
On mån, 2011-03-28 at 20:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > On lör, 2011-03-26 at 00:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> * It'd sure be nice if we had some nontrivial test cases that work
> >> in encodings besides UTF8. I'm still bothered that the committed
> >> patch failed to c
Since ILIKE now responds to collations, it would be nice if the
case-insensitive regex operators did too. The hard part of that is
getting the information from src/backend/utils/adt/regexp.c to
src/backend/regex/regc_locale.c. In principle we could probably add
a field to the data structures carr
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On mån, 2011-03-28 at 20:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> One thing I noticed but didn't push to committing is that the test
>> case has a largely-unnecessary assumption about how the local system's
>> locale names spell "utf8". We could eliminate that by having it use
>>
> Welcome to the wonderful world of keywords in hba not being specific
> to fields. I encountered this problem myself back in Oct 2010 [1] and
> predicted that it would bite other users. You've been kind enough to
> validate that prediction. I submitted a WIP patch aimed at fixing it
> just ove
On Apr 9, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Since ILIKE now responds to collations, it would be nice if the
> case-insensitive regex operators did too. The hard part of that is
> getting the information from src/backend/utils/adt/regexp.c to
> src/backend/regex/regc_locale.c. In principle we c
On 04/09/2011 03:18 PM, Brendan Jurd wrote:
On 10 April 2011 04:23, Joshua Berkus wrote:
If I have the following line in pg_hba.conf:
hostreplication replication all md5
pg_basebackup -x -v -P -h master1 -U replication -D $PGDATA
pg_basebackup: could
On 04/09/2011 07:11 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Incidentally, are walsenders supposed to be able to match any db name
other than 'replication'? If not, I think we have a bug in check_db(),
which is probably missing an "else return false;" in the amwalsender
branch.
Sorry, I misread the
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 09:05:42AM -0400, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Why is it important to have the original pg_clog files around? ?Since
> >> > the transactions in question are belo
Hello all,
I was going through some papers related to sorting and since I am
studying PG code side by side, I wondered how sorting would be done on a
DB with millions of rows on disk with GBs of data. Since holding
everything in memory would not be the possible solution, how do we
actually sort th
> That's a 2000 line patch that looks like it's out of the question now.
> But I think this should fix Josh's immediate problem if we want to do it:
I have confirmed that Andrew's patch works.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
While looking at the typed table/pg_upgrade problem, I ran into a few smaller
problems in the area. I'm not envisioning a need for much code shift to fix
them, but there are a few points of policy.
* Table row types used in typed tables vs. ALTER TABLE
As previously noted:
CREATE TABLE t ();
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, it sounded like your argument had to do with whether it would use
> HashAgg or not -- that is *not* dependent on the per-palloc limit, and
> never has been.
>
His point was he wanted to be allowed to set work_mem > 1GB. This is
going to becom
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 03:05 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > BTW, it sounded like your argument had to do with whether it would use
> > HashAgg or not -- that is *not* dependent on the per-palloc limit, and
> > never has been.
> >
>
> His point was he
* Greg Stark (gsst...@mit.edu) wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > BTW, it sounded like your argument had to do with whether it would use
> > HashAgg or not -- that is *not* dependent on the per-palloc limit, and
> > never has been.
>
> His point was he wanted to be allow
Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Why is it important to have the original pg_clog files around? ?Since
> >> > the transactions in question are below the freeze horizon, surely the
> >> > tu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 05:20:02AM +0530, Vaibhav Kaushal wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I was going through some papers related to sorting and since I am
> studying PG code side by side, I wondered how sorting would be done on a
> DB with millions of rows o
42 matches
Mail list logo
