Hello,
I'm trying to add audit capability to Postgresql server. When the Postgresql
server starts up, the server will start audit functions as a new subprocess
thus the server will have 5 subprocesses instead of 4. I want to store logs in
a database within the same Postgresql server [from
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
and possibly we ought to put them all in a
linked list so that the next guy who
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that
something's missing.
I'm quoting you completely out of context here, but yes, something is missing.
We can't credibly do one test on usage count in shared buffers and
then start talking about how buffer
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
and
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 09:40:15PM +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
and possibly we ought to put them all in a
linked list so that the next guy who needs a buffer can just pop one
The whole point of the clock sweep
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
The big problem with this idea is that it pretty much requires that
the work you mentioned in one of your other emails - separating the
background writer and checkpoint machinery into two separate processes
- to happen
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
On
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
The big problem with this idea is that it pretty much requires that
the work you mentioned in one of your other emails - separating the
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
On 14.08.2011 01:13, Tom Lane wrote:
I am thinking that the most reasonable solution is instead to fix VACUUM
FULL/CLUSTER so that they don't change existing toast item OIDs when
vacuuming a system catalog. They already do some
Amir Abdollahi amirabd2...@yahoo.com writes:
I'm trying to add audit capability to Postgresql server. When the
Postgresql server starts up, the server will start audit functions as
a new subprocess thus the server will have 5 subprocesses instead of 4.
That doesn't sound like it's going to
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that something's missing.
I'm quoting you completely out of context here, but yes, something is missing.
We can't credibly do one test on usage count in shared buffers
So, as the testing rolls on, I started to see some failures in various
ALTER-FOREIGN-thingy commands. The cause proved to be that numerous
places in foreigncmds.c do this:
tuple = SearchSysCacheCopy(...);
... alter the tuple as needed ...
rel = heap_open(target-catalog,
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that something's missing.
I'm quoting you completely out of context here, but yes, something is
Hi!
Thank you for your notes.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 6:21 AM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.com wrote:
[ new patch ]
Some random comments:
- It appears that the noFollowFight flag is really supposed to be
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
So, as the testing rolls on, I started to see some failures in various
ALTER-FOREIGN-thingy commands. The cause proved to be that numerous
places in foreigncmds.c do this:
tuple = SearchSysCacheCopy(...);
...
I wrote:
I am thinking that the most reasonable solution is instead to fix VACUUM
FULL/CLUSTER so that they don't change existing toast item OIDs when
vacuuming a system catalog. They already do some pretty ugly things to
avoid changing the toast table's OID in this case, and locking down the
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
There would be some merit in your suggestion if we knew that all/most
toasted columns would actually get fetched out of the catcache entry
at some point. Then we'd only be moving the cost around, and might even
save something
On 08/12/2011 10:51 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
If you execute a large batch delete or update or even just set lots of
hint bits you'll dirty a lot of buffers. The ring buffer forces the
query that is actually dirtying all these buffers to also do the i/o
to write them out. Otherwise you leave them
Dave Byrne wrote:
Beginning with commit 002c105a0706bd1c1e939fe0f47ecdceeae6c52d
pg_upgrade will fail if there are orphaned temp tables in the current
database with the message 'old and new databases postgres have a
different number of relations'
On line 41 of pg_upgrade/info.c pg_upgrade
19 matches
Mail list logo
