On 14.03.2012 01:53, Josh Berkus wrote:
1. The Free Space Map is not replicated between servers.
2. Thus, when we fail over to a replica, it starts with a blank FSM.
The FSM is included in the base backup, and it is updated when VACUUM
records are replayed.
It is also updated when
Hi All,
Can i use keystone auth with PostgreSQL, it is very helpful when i am
using OpenStack as a cloud service and implement DBaaS.
--
ViVek Raghuwanshi
Mobile -+91-09595950504
Skype - vivek_raghuwanshi
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
Generally, uppon rereading, I have to say that I am not very happy with the
decision that ANY triggers are fired from other places than the specific
triggers. That seams to be a
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org wrote:
However I saw 1505 more accesses in total. My guess is this number
mainly comes from index meta page access. So my guess is we need 3
page accesses (to traverse b tree index tree) before reaching the leaf
page in
On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 05:23:03 AM Jeff Davis wrote:
On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 09:42 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
for recursively everything in dir:
posix_fadvise(fd, POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED);
for recursively everything in dir:
fsync(fd);
Wow, that made a huge difference!
no
Could anyone please explain the behaviour of Postgres in the cases
below? It evaluates an unused expression t.x || t.y in the first case
but doesn't do it in the second one. It's also strange that the last
explain throws an error.
postgres=# select version();
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 08:24:47AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
Folks,
This is for 9.3, of course.
I noticed that CREATE FOREIGN TABLE (LIKE some_table) doesn't work. I
believe it should, as it would:
- Remove a POLA violation
- Make data loading into an extant table even easier,
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
For such system, so far I've been suggesting using pgstatindex, but it's good
if pg_prewarm can do that.
Relevant to this, see commit 2e46bf67114586835f4a9908f1a1f08ee8ba83a8.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:28 AM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 08:24:47AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
Folks,
This is for 9.3, of course.
I noticed that CREATE FOREIGN TABLE (LIKE some_table) doesn't work. I
believe it should, as it would:
- Remove a POLA
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Also, when calling the user's procedure from the same place in case of an
ANY command trigger or a specific one it's then possible to just hand
them over the exact same set of info (object id, name, schema name).
Hi,
A colleague came to me to express his surprise about this quite simple
use case:
=# alter table toto add column user text;
ERROR: syntax error at or near user
LINE 1: alter table toto add column user text;
Is there a reason for us not to add an HINT: user is a reserved
keyword or
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 08:53:17AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:28 AM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 08:24:47AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
Folks,
This is for 9.3, of course.
I noticed that CREATE FOREIGN TABLE (LIKE some_table)
Hi,
I have a hard time figuring out why my replication stopped with a message like
FATAL: password authentication failed for user foo
in the logs. I thought it was some pg_hba.conf change, a pgpass modification,
or NOLOGIN option, it wasn't. I was out of options when I remembered to check
if
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:28 AM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Here's a WIP patch (lots of cut/paste, no docs, no tests), but it does
work. Still to do in addition: decide whether ALTER FOREIGN TABLE
should also handle LIKE.
I think that
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:27:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:28 AM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Here's a WIP patch (lots of cut/paste, no docs, no tests), but it does
work. �Still to do in addition: decide whether
2012/3/14 Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr:
Hi,
A colleague came to me to express his surprise about this quite simple
use case:
=# alter table toto add column user text;
ERROR: syntax error at or near user
LINE 1: alter table toto add column user text;
Is there a reason for
On 14-03-2012 10:58, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Is there a reason for us not to add an HINT: user is a reserved
keyword or something like that, other than nobody having been interested
in doing the work?
AFAIK, there is no such warning message in the code. If you're volunteering to
do it, please
Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org writes:
I have created a 29GB test database by using standard pgbnech -i -s
2000. Then I executed:
That means 200 million accounts rows. With integer keys you could
expect to get 200 to 300 keys per index page. Taking the number as 200
for simplicity, we
2012/3/14 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
2012/3/14 Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr:
Hi,
A colleague came to me to express his surprise about this quite simple
use case:
=# alter table toto add column user text;
ERROR: syntax error at or near user
LINE 1: alter table
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:20:05AM -0300, Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
Hi,
I have a hard time figuring out why my replication stopped with a message like
FATAL: password authentication failed for user foo
in the logs. I thought it was some pg_hba.conf change, a pgpass modification,
Vlad Arkhipov arhi...@dc.baikal.ru writes:
Could anyone please explain the behaviour of Postgres in the cases
below?
I think it has something to do with anytextcat() being mistakenly marked
as volatile, thus preventing flattening of the subquery in the cases
where you don't explicitly coerce
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
I didn't do INHERITS because most FDWs won't ever have that concept,
i.e. aren't PostgreSQL.
What's that have to do with it? Inheritance would be a local
association of tables, having nothing to do with what the remote end is.
IOW, if c inherits from p,
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:27:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Hm. That opinion seems to me to connect to the recently-posted
patch to make contrib/file_fdw enforce NOT NULL constraints. Should
we instead have the position that constraints declared for
2012/3/14 David Fetter da...@fetter.org
I don't know how frequently people use VALID UNTIL, but I'm guessing
it's not terribly often because yours is the first comment about how
it's not exposed, so I'd tend toward putting it in attributes rather
than a separate column.
If it's desired I
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:29:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:27:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Hm. That opinion seems to me to connect to the recently-posted
patch to make contrib/file_fdw enforce NOT NULL constraints.
Should we
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:29:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
The posted patch for file_fdw takes the approach of silently
filtering out rows for which they're not true, which is not
obviously the right thing either --- quite aside from whether that's
a sane
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:22 AM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
I think that instead of inventing new grammar productions and a new
node type for this, you should just reuse the existing productions for
LIKE clauses and then reject invalid options during parse analysis.
OK. Should I
On 14/03/2012 16:47, David Fetter wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:29:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:27:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Hm. That opinion seems to me to connect to the recently-posted
patch to make contrib/file_fdw
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:29:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
The posted patch for file_fdw takes the approach of silently
filtering out rows for which they're not true, which is not
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
More often than that; each 2-member mxid takes 4 bytes in an offsets file and
10 bytes in a members file. So, more like one fsync per ~580 mxids. Note
that we already fsync the multixact SLRUs today, so any increase will
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Hans-Jürgen Schönig
postg...@cybertec.at wrote:
Here's the cross-col patch against todays master branch.
Please add your patch here, so it doesn't get forgotten:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Joachim Wieland j...@mcknight.de wrote:
If a child terminates without leaving a message, the master will still
detect it and just say a worker process died unexpectedly (this part
was actually broken, but now it's fixed :-) )
All that may be true, but I still
For 9.3 at a minimum.
The topic of LZO became mired in doubts about:
* Potential Patents
* The author's intention for the implementation to be GPL
Since then, Google released Snappy, also an LZ77-class
implementation, and it has been ported to C (recently, and with some
quirks, like no LICENSE
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:06:16AM -0700, Daniel Farina wrote:
For 9.3 at a minimum.
The topic of LZO became mired in doubts about:
* Potential Patents
* The author's intention for the implementation to be GPL
Since then, Google released Snappy, also an LZ77-class
implementation, and
Excerpts from Tatsuo Ishii's message of mar mar 13 23:29:44 -0300 2012:
As you can see, this query generated 1255+1250 = 2505 times block read
either from the buffer or the disk. In my understanding the query
accesses an index tuple, which will need access to root page and
several number of
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I've finally been able to run some more tests of the effect of
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
For 9.3 at a minimum.
The topic of LZO became mired in doubts about:
* Potential Patents
* The author's intention for the implementation to be GPL
Since then, Google released Snappy, also an LZ77-class
implementation,
On ons, 2012-03-14 at 14:58 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
A colleague came to me to express his surprise about this quite simple
use case:
=# alter table toto add column user text;
ERROR: syntax error at or near user
LINE 1: alter table toto add column user text;
Is there a
On ons, 2012-03-14 at 10:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
That opinion seems to me to connect to the recently-posted patch to
make contrib/file_fdw enforce NOT NULL constraints. Should we instead
have the position that constraints declared for foreign tables are
statements that we can take on faith,
On tis, 2012-03-13 at 20:34 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I frankly am worried that if we copy over statistics even in ASCII
that don't match what the server expects, it might lead to a crash,
which has me back to wanting to speed up vacuumdb.
Why can't we maintain a conversion routine for
On 03/13/2012 02:10 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 03/13/2012 01:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
I tried this actually (patch attached) but then I wanted to test it
and couldn't find anything that used pgpipe() on Windows.
pg_basebackup/pg_basebackup.c is using it but it's in an #ifndef WIN32
and
On 03/14/2012 04:10 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
there are plenty of on gpl lz based libraries out there (for example:
http://www.fastlz.org/) and always have been. they are all much
faster than zlib. the main issue is patents...you have to be careful
even though all the lz77/78 patents seem to
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On ons, 2012-03-14 at 10:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
That opinion seems to me to connect to the recently-posted patch to
make contrib/file_fdw enforce NOT NULL constraints. Should we instead
have the position that constraints declared for foreign tables
On 03/14/2012 04:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentrautpete...@gmx.net writes:
On ons, 2012-03-14 at 10:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
That opinion seems to me to connect to the recently-posted patch to
make contrib/file_fdw enforce NOT NULL constraints. Should we instead
have the position
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
That's a speedup of nearly a factor of two, so clearly fsync-related
stalls are a big problem here, even with wal_buffers cranked up
through the
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 04:43:55PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 03/14/2012 04:10 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
there are plenty of on gpl lz based libraries out there (for example:
http://www.fastlz.org/) and always have been. they are all much
faster than zlib. the main issue is
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
I think my analysis is pretty much a re-wording of yours, but I'd
emphasize that getting the WALWriteLock is bad not just because they
fight over the lock, but because someone else (probably background wal
writer) is
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mié mar 14 17:39:59 -0300 2012:
pgpipe used to be used in pgstat.c, but that's no longer true in any
live branch, so it's probably long dead. I'd be inclined to rip it out
if possible rather than expand its use.
our pgpipe() function is interesting
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 03/14/2012 04:10 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
there are plenty of on gpl lz based libraries out there (for example:
http://www.fastlz.org/) and always have been. they are all much
faster than zlib. the main issue
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
er, typo: I meant to say: *non-gpl* lz based... :-).
Given that, few I would say have had the traction that LZO and Snappy
have had, even though in many respects they are interchangeable in the
general trade-off spectrum.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Andrew Dunstan aduns...@postgresql.org wrote:
I've just started looking at the patch, and I'm curious to know why it
didn't follow the pattern of parallel pg_restore which created a new worker
for each table rather than passing messages to looping worker threads
On ons, 2012-03-14 at 16:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
On reflection I don't see anything much wrong with the if you lied
about the constraint it's your fault that things broke position.
It seems quite comparable to the fact that we take the user's
assertions on faith as to the number and data
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On ons, 2012-03-14 at 16:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
On reflection I don't see anything much wrong with the if you lied
about the constraint it's your fault that things broke position.
It seems quite comparable to the fact
On ons, 2012-03-14 at 17:16 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
If a constraint is NOT ENFORCED, then the query planner presumably
won't rely on it for planning purposes
Why do you presume that?
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Also, when calling the user's procedure from the same place in case of an
ANY command trigger or a specific one it's then possible to just hand
them over the exact same set of info (object id, name, schema name).
Yes, I think that's an essential
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:40:41PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tis, 2012-03-13 at 20:34 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I frankly am worried that if we copy over statistics even in ASCII
that don't match what the server expects, it might lead to a crash,
which has me back to wanting to
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On ons, 2012-03-14 at 17:16 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
If a constraint is NOT ENFORCED, then the query planner presumably
won't rely on it for planning purposes
Why do you presume that?
What does SQL:2011 say exactly about the semantics of NOT
Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com writes:
Given that, few I would say have had the traction that LZO and Snappy
have had, even though in many respects they are interchangeable in the
general trade-off spectrum. The question is: what burden of proof is
required to convince the project that Snappy
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Another not-exactly-trivial requirement is to figure out how to
not break on-disk compatibility when installing an alternative
compression scheme. In hindsight it might've been a good idea if
pglz_compress had wasted a little bit of space on some sort of
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 01:23:14PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
More often than that; each 2-member mxid takes 4 bytes in an offsets file
and
10 bytes in a members file. ?So, more like one fsync per ~580 mxids. ?Note
that
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On ons, 2012-03-14 at 17:16 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
If a constraint is NOT ENFORCED, then the query planner presumably
won't rely on it for planning purposes
Why do you presume that?
Well, as Tom alludes to, I'm
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com writes:
Given that, few I would say have had the traction that LZO and Snappy
have had, even though in many respects they are interchangeable in the
general trade-off spectrum. The question is:
2012/3/14 David Fetter da...@fetter.org
I don't know how frequently people use VALID UNTIL, but I'm guessing
it's not terribly often because yours is the first comment about how
it's not exposed, so I'd tend toward putting it in attributes rather
than a separate column.
The attached patch
As you can see, this query generated 1255+1250 = 2505 times block read
either from the buffer or the disk. In my understanding the query
accesses an index tuple, which will need access to root page and
several number of meta pages (I mean index pages they are not either
root or leaf pages)
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 09:15:52PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 08:22:51PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:33:29PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
What is the target=10 duration? I think 10 is as low
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fabr=EDzio_de_Royes_Mello?= fabriziome...@gmail.com writes:
The attached patch put VALID UNTIL into attributes column in verbose mode
like example above.
Why would you confine it to verbose mode? For most people it won't
matter, but for people who are using the feature, it seems
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Does anyone know how bad the queries will be with only one target?
Bad. That cycle seems like largely a waste of time. About the only
thing it would do for you is ensure that relpages/reltuples are up to
date, which seems like something we could possibly
2012/3/14 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Why would you confine it to verbose mode?
Because I did not want to change the current behavior of this psql
command... but...
For most people it won't
matter, but for people who are using the feature, it seems like
important information. Per the
Excerpts from Noah Misch's message of mié mar 14 19:10:00 -0300 2012:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 01:23:14PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
More often than that; each 2-member mxid takes 4 bytes in an offsets file
and
10
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 08:26:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Does anyone know how bad the queries will be with only one target?
Bad. That cycle seems like largely a waste of time. About the only
thing it would do for you is ensure that
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Another not-exactly-trivial requirement is to figure out how to
not break on-disk compatibility when installing an alternative
compression scheme. In hindsight it might've
I looked into the problem complained of here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2012-03/msg00016.php
It's not at all specific to custom types; you can exhibit it with
this query in the regression database:
explain select * from
(select 1 as t, unique1 from tenk1 a
union all
select 2
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Do we have an updated patch? Fujii?
No. I believe that the author Jim will submit the updated version.
Jim, are you going to submit an updated
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Doesn't it always start with a header of two int32 values where the
first must be smaller than the second? That seems like enough to
get traction for an identifiably
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Well, let's please not make the same mistake again of assuming that
there will never again be any other ideas in this space. IOW, let's
find a way to shoehorn in an actual compression-method ID value of some
sort. I don't
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Well, post-release, the cat is out of the bag: we'll be stuck with
this whether the performance characteristics are acceptable or not.
That's why we'd better be as sure as possible before committing to
this implementation
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Agreed. But speaking of that, why exactly do we fsync the multixact SLRU
today?
Good question. So far, I can't think of a reason. nextMulti is critical,
but we already fsync it with pg_control. We could
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Joey Adams joeyadams3.14...@gmail.com wrote:
libpq has functions for escaping values in SQL commands
(PQescapeStringConn, PQescapeByteaConn, and the new PQescapeLiteral),
and it supports parameterizing queries with PQexecParams. But it does
not (to my
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should get rid of die_horribly(), and instead have arrange
to always clean up AH via an on_exit_nicely hook.
Good. The only exit handler I've seen so far is
pgdump_cleanup_at_exit. If there's no other one, is
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Andrew Dunstan aduns...@postgresql.org wrote:
I've just started looking at the patch, and I'm curious to know why it
didn't follow the pattern of parallel pg_restore which created a new worker
for each table rather than passing messages to looping worker threads
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:06:20PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:22 AM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
I think that instead of inventing new grammar productions and a new
node type for this, you should just reuse the existing productions for
LIKE clauses and
81 matches
Mail list logo
