Hello
2012/3/1 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
Why does CollectCheckedFunctions skip trigger functions? My only guess
is that at one point the checker was not supposed to know how to check
them, and a later version learned about it and this bit wasn't updated;
but maybe there's
2012/3/2 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
I've cleaned up the backend code a bit -- see attached. More yet to go
through; I'm mainly sending it out for you (and everyone, really) to
give your opinion on my changes so far.
(I split out the plpgsql checker for the time being into a
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 01.03.2012 18:40, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 24.02.2012 22:55, Simon Riggs wrote:
What exactly does
On 01/03/2012 23:13, Tom Lane wrote:
Jehan-Guillaume (ioguix) de Rorthais j...@dalibo.com writes:
One of our customer send us a patch he wrote for his needs (on
src/bin/scripts/vacuumdb.c, no doc were included).
He's using one schema per application and would like to be able to run
vacuumdb
Folks,
I got a system here (8.3.7), that is locked up. Few queries waiting
for autovacuum aquired locks on a table or two.
But it looks like autovacuum is also waiting for some semaphore:
#0 0x00f07410 in __kernel_vsyscall ()
#1 0x00252d2b in semop () from /lib/libc.so.6
#2 0x081ca1ce in
Excerpts from Gregg Jaskiewicz's message of vie mar 02 07:44:07 -0300 2012:
Folks,
I got a system here (8.3.7), that is locked up. Few queries waiting
for autovacuum aquired locks on a table or two.
But it looks like autovacuum is also waiting for some semaphore:
#0 0x00f07410 in
On 2 March 2012 11:03, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Gregg Jaskiewicz's message of vie mar 02 07:44:07 -0300 2012:
Folks,
I got a system here (8.3.7), that is locked up. Few queries waiting
for autovacuum aquired locks on a table or two.
But it looks like
Looking at the system bit more now, it look like 'waiting' states are
changing for both the query and autovacuum in pg_stat_activity.
But very slowly. It looks like they both got into that sort of state
that keeps them on the edge of starvation.
So this isn't really a deadlock, but rather very
On 20.02.2012 10:54, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alexander Korotkovaekorot...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
So, I think we should go with
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 17:26, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 16:20, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 04:37, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Why not change the default? Does
On 20.02.2012 00:18, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Simon Riggssi...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Simon Riggssi...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Recent changes for power
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 09:22, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:30, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Excerpts from Gregg Jaskiewicz's message of vie mar 02 08:22:22 -0300 2012:
Looking at the system bit more now, it look like 'waiting' states are
changing for both the query and autovacuum in pg_stat_activity.
But very slowly. It looks like they both got into that sort of state
that keeps
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of vie mar 02 05:29:26 -0300 2012:
you cannot to check trigger function without assigned relation -
TupleDescription should be assigned to NEW and OLD variables.
Oh, I see, that makes sense.
After mulling over this a bit, I'm dubious about having two
Le 03/02/2012 10:52, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 10:47, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de wrote:
--On 3. Februar 2012 13:21:11 +0900 Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com
wrote:
It seems to be more
Hello
2012/3/2 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of vie mar 02 05:29:26 -0300 2012:
you cannot to check trigger function without assigned relation -
TupleDescription should be assigned to NEW and OLD variables.
Oh, I see, that makes sense.
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Gregg Jaskiewicz gryz...@gmail.com wrote:
Looking at the system bit more now, it look like 'waiting' states are
changing for both the query and autovacuum in pg_stat_activity.
But very slowly. It looks like they both got into that sort of state
that keeps them
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Right. I think I can explain how this locking works: autovacuum needs a
cleanup lock on the page being processed, which is a special exclusive
lock which also requires that no one is holding a pin on the buffer.
Any process running a query
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
So the real problem is slow removal of prepared transactions,
which most likely is an application logic problem. It's certainly
not autovac's fault.
Yeah, I've seen way too much Java code lately which fails to close
ResultSet or Statement (which includes
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:46:23AM +0100, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
2011-11-16 20:51 keltez?ssel, Boszormenyi Zoltan ?rta:
2010-10-14 11:56 keltez?ssel, Boszormenyi Zoltan ?rta:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Michael Meskes mes...@postgresql.org
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at
Still working through this patch ... there are some things that bother
me about the entries being made in pg_statistic:
1. You re-used STATISTIC_KIND_MCELEM for something that, while similar
to tsvector's usage, is not the same. In particular, tsvector adds two
extra elements to the stanumbers
On 23 February 2012 01:39, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for testing this. The graph obscures a bit how much percentage
change we're talking about here - could you post the raw tps numbers?
Sorry for not following up on this until now. The report is available from:
It would probably be prudent to concentrate on getting the core
infrastructure committed first. That way, we at least know that if
this doesn't get into 9.2, we can work on getting it into 9.3 knowing
that once committed, people won't have to wait over a year at the very
I don't see why we
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
It would probably be prudent to concentrate on getting the core
infrastructure committed first. That way, we at least know that if
this doesn't get into 9.2, we can work on getting it into 9.3 knowing
that once committed, people won't have to wait over a
On tis, 2012-02-28 at 11:00 -0800, Daniel Farina wrote:
I'd really like to support libraries (C or otherwise) of multiple
versions at the same time, when the underlying library permits.
What's preventing you from doing that now? You need to name all the
symbols differently, of course.
--
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tis, 2012-02-28 at 11:00 -0800, Daniel Farina wrote:
I'd really like to support libraries (C or otherwise) of multiple
versions at the same time, when the underlying library permits.
What's preventing you from doing
On tor, 2012-03-01 at 20:30 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
besides a clash in the oid and the value of leakproof missing in the
pg_proc entry, everything works fine.
Fixed.
The only thing is that i don't see a reason for these includes in
src/backend/utils/adt/misc.c:
+ #include
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
It would probably be prudent to concentrate on getting the core
infrastructure committed first. That way, we at least know that if
this doesn't get into 9.2, we can work on getting it into
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
One thing I'm not too sure about is how to extend the page format to
handle optional features. For example, suppose we want to add 2 bytes
to the page header for a checksum (or 4
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
v8 attached
v10 attached.
This patch covers all the valid concerns discussed and has been
extensively tested.
If I turn wal_level to
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
It would probably be prudent to concentrate on getting the core
infrastructure committed first. That way, we at least know that if
this doesn't get into 9.2, we can work on getting it into
We'll get to it in due time. In case you haven't noticed, there's a lot
of stuff in this commitfest. And I don't follow the logic that says
that because Simon is trying to push through a not-ready-for-commit
patch we should drop our standards for other patches.
What I'm pointing out is
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
We'll get to it in due time. In case you haven't noticed, there's a lot
of stuff in this commitfest. And I don't follow the logic that says
that because Simon is trying to push
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
This is exactly why I'm not keen on checksums for 9.2. We've reached
the point where the attention on the checksum patch is pushing aside
other patches which are more ready and have had more work.
IMO the reason why it's sucking so much attention is
On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 12:02:29PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
When Heikki worked up his original index-only scan patches (which
didn't end up looking much like what eventually got committed), he had
the notion of an index-only qual. That is, given a query like this:
select sum(1) from foo
I wrote:
... So my preference is to align the two
definitions of STATISTIC_KIND_MCELEM by adding a null-element frequency
to tsvector's usage (where it'll always be zero) and getting rid of the
average distinct element count here.
Actually, there's a way we can do this without code changes in
I decided to investigate the possible virtues of allowing text to
use the sortsupport infrastructure, since strings are something people
often want to sort. I generated 100,000 random alphanumeric strings,
each 30 characters in length, and loaded them into a single-column
table, froze it, ran
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 08:46:45AM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
It's still broken:
[BEGIN;TRUNCATE;SAVEPOINT;COPY;ROLLBACK TO]
So this approach isn't the one...
The COPY FREEZE patch provides a
Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Incidentally, I contend that we should write frozen tuples to
new/truncated tables unconditionally.
+1
The current behavior of making old snapshots see the table as
empty violates atomicity at least as badly as letting those
snapshots see the
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tis, 2012-02-28 at 11:00 -0800, Daniel Farina wrote:
I'd really like to support libraries (C or otherwise) of multiple
versions at the same time,
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
This is exactly why I'm not keen on checksums for 9.2. We've reached
the point where the attention on the checksum patch is pushing aside
other patches which are more ready and have had
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
But is it unsurmountable? -- dlsym returns a function pointer, and one
would build up the operator table for the version of the extension at
hand, so one might have ltree version 1.01 and ltree version 2.3
fields in the
Hi,
Got any result so far?
I measured the results with barrier=0, and yes, you are correct -- it seems
that most of the benefit of the open_direct wal_sync_method is probably from
not doing the barrier operation at the end of fsync():
wal_sync_method
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 08:46:45AM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
It's still broken:
[BEGIN;TRUNCATE;SAVEPOINT;COPY;ROLLBACK TO]
So
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I like Marti's idea. At present, making his idea work could easily
mean checksums sink, so not sure whether to attempt to make that
work in detail.
For my part, improving bulk load performance and TRUNCATE
transactional semantics would trump
On 2 March 2012 22:32, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Hi,
Please find attached v13 of the command trigger patch, fixing most of
known items and rebased against master. Two important items remain to be
done, but I figured I should keep you posted in the meantime.
Thanks
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Checksums patch isn't sucking much attention at all but admittedly
there are some people opposed to the patch that want to draw out the
conversation until the patch is rejected,
Wow. Sounds like a really shitty thing for
On 2 March 2012 23:33, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
On 2 March 2012 22:32, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
test=# CREATE TABLE badname (id int, a int, b text);
ERROR: invalid relation name: badname
test=# CREATE TABLE badname AS SELECT 1::int id, 1::int a, ''::text b;
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
This seems over-complicated. Triggers on tables do not have
alterable properties, why should command triggers? I vote for
CREATE COMMAND TRIGGER name ... properties
anara...@anarazel.de and...@anarazel.de schrieb:
Thom Brown t...@linux.com schrieb:
On 2 March 2012 23:33, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
On 2 March 2012 22:32, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr
wrote:
test=# CREATE TABLE badname (id int, a int, b text);
ERROR: invalid relation
On 3 March 2012 00:08, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
On 2 March 2012 23:33, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
On 2 March 2012 22:32, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
test=# CREATE TABLE badname (id int, a int, b text);
ERROR: invalid relation name: badname
test=# CREATE TABLE
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar feb 28 16:30:58 -0300 2012:
Hello
Dne 28. února 2012 17:48 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com
napsal(a):
I have a few comments about this patch:
I didn't like the fact that the checker calling infrastructure uses
SPI instead of
Hello
It wasn't all that difficult -- see below. While at this, I have a
question: how attached you are to the current return format for CHECK
FUNCTION?
TupleDescr is created by language creator. This ensure exactly
expected format, because there are no possible registry check function
with
2012/3/3 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
Hello
It wasn't all that difficult -- see below. While at this, I have a
question: how attached you are to the current return format for CHECK
FUNCTION?
TupleDescr is created by language creator. This ensure exactly
expected format, because
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of sáb mar 03 02:45:06 -0300 2012:
Without correct registration you cannot to call PL check function
directly simply. I don't thing so this is good price for removing a
few SPI lines. I don't understand why you don't like SPI.
I don't dislike SPI in
2012/3/3 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of sáb mar 03 02:45:06 -0300 2012:
Without correct registration you cannot to call PL check function
directly simply. I don't thing so this is good price for removing a
few SPI lines. I don't
56 matches
Mail list logo