Re: [HACKERS] reviewing the Reduce sinval synchronization overhead patch / b4fbe392f8ff6ff1a66b488eb7197eef9e1770a4

2012-09-10 Thread Nils Goroll
This is really late, but ... On 08/21/12 11:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote: Our sinval synchronization mechanism has a somewhat weird design that makes this OK. ... I don't want to miss the change to thank you, Robert, for the detailed explanation. I have backported

Re: [HACKERS] Supporting plpython 2+3 builds better

2012-09-10 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On Sun, 2012-09-09 at 03:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Another problem is that Makefile.shlib isn't designed to build more than one shared library per directory, That's the main problem, but fixing it would be very useful in other places as well. I had it on my radar to do something about

Re: [HACKERS] Supporting plpython 2+3 builds better

2012-09-10 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of lun sep 10 09:50:42 -0300 2012: On Sun, 2012-09-09 at 03:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Another problem is that Makefile.shlib isn't designed to build more than one shared library per directory, That's the main problem, but fixing it would be

[HACKERS] Enum binary access

2012-09-10 Thread Petr Chmelar
Hi there, we tried to create the libpqtypes enum binary send but it doesn't work: // register types PGregisterType user_def[] = { {seqtype, enum_put, enum_get} }; PQregisterTypes(connector-getConn(), PQT_USERDEFINED, user_def, 1, 0); // enum_put throws format error int enum_put (PGtypeArgs

Re: [HACKERS] Enum binary access

2012-09-10 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Petr Chmelar chmel...@fit.vutbr.cz wrote: Hi there, we tried to create the libpqtypes enum binary send but it doesn't work: // register types PGregisterType user_def[] = { {seqtype, enum_put, enum_get} }; PQregisterTypes(connector-getConn(), PQT_USERDEFINED,

Re: [HACKERS] Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol

2012-09-10 Thread Amit Kapila
On Sunday, September 09, 2012 1:37 PM Amit Kapila wrote: On Friday, September 07, 2012 11:19 PM Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi writes: Would socketpair(2) be simpler? I've not done anything yet about the potential security issues associated with untrusted libpq connection

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

2012-09-10 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 08:52:37PM +0200, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: On 09/06/2012 12:13 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 8/29/12 11:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Why does this need to be tied into the build farm? Someone can surely set up a script that just runs the docs build at every

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

2012-09-10 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun sep 10 11:55:58 -0300 2012: On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 08:52:37PM +0200, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: why would we want to publish docs for something that fails to build and/or fails to pass regression testing - to me code and the docs for it are a

Re: [HACKERS] Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol

2012-09-10 Thread Gurjeet Singh
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Notably, while the lack of any background processes is just what you want for pg_upgrade and disaster recovery, an ordinary application is probably going to want to rely on autovacuum; and we need bgwriter and other background

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

2012-09-10 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:06:18PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: It is this kind of run-around that caused me to generate my own doc build in the past; maybe I need to return to doing my own doc build. You keep threatening with that. You are free, of course, to do anything you want, and

Re: [HACKERS] Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol

2012-09-10 Thread Aidan Van Dyk
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Notably, while the lack of any background processes is just what you want for pg_upgrade and disaster recovery, an ordinary application is probably

Re: [HACKERS] Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol

2012-09-10 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 10.09.2012 18:12, Gurjeet Singh wrote: On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Notably, while the lack of any background processes is just what you want for pg_upgrade and disaster recovery, an ordinary application is probably going to want to rely on autovacuum;

Re: [HACKERS] Question about SSI, subxacts, and aborted read-only xacts

2012-09-10 Thread Kevin Grittner
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote: This question comes about after reading the VLDB paper Serializable Snapshot Isolation in PostgreSQL. ... and I know Jeff read that quite closely because he raised a question off-list about an error he found in it which managed to survive the many editing

Re: [HACKERS] Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol

2012-09-10 Thread Gurjeet Singh
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fiwrote: On 10.09.2012 18:12, Gurjeet Singh wrote: On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Notably, while the lack of any background processes is just what you want for pg_upgrade and disaster

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump transaction's read-only mode

2012-09-10 Thread Pavan Deolasee
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote: That makes sense to me. The reason I didn't make that change when I added the serializable special case to pg_dump was that it seemed like a separate question; I didn't want to complicate an already big patch

Re: [HACKERS] Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol

2012-09-10 Thread Tom Lane
Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com writes: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fiwrote: [scratches head] How's that different from the normal postmaster mode? As I described in later paragraphs, it'd behave like an embedded database, like SQLite etc., so the

Re: [HACKERS] Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol

2012-09-10 Thread Josh Berkus
The point of the proposal that I am making is to have a simple, low-maintenance solution for people who need a single-application database. A compromise somewhere in the middle isn't likely to be an improvement for anybody. For instance, if you want to have additional connections, you open

Re: [HACKERS] Supporting plpython 2+3 builds better

2012-09-10 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/10/12 9:26 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I remember trying to do this for the mb/conversion_procs subdir years ago, to make them build in parallel to save some time. It didn't go anywhere but the basic idea seems similar in spirit. Maybe we can use this there too to make it fast. Parallel

Re: [HACKERS] Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol

2012-09-10 Thread Kevin Grittner
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: In fact, most of the folks who would want an embedded PostgreSQL either want no authentication at all, or only a single password. So supporting authentication options other than trust or md5 is not required, or desired AFAIK. I don't know whether it's

[HACKERS] Extend argument of OAT_POST_CREATE

2012-09-10 Thread Kohei KaiGai
The attached patch adds argument of OAT_POST_CREATE hook; to inform extensions type of the context of this object creation. It allows extensions to know whether the new object is indirectly created apart from user's operations, or not. I found out this flag is necessary to add feature to support

Re: [HACKERS] Question about SSI, subxacts, and aborted read-only xacts

2012-09-10 Thread Jeff Davis
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 11:15 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: ... and I know Jeff read that quite closely because he raised a question off-list about an error he found in it which managed to survive the many editing and review passes that paper went through. :-) Well, I need to keep up with the

Re: [HACKERS] Question about SSI, subxacts, and aborted read-only xacts

2012-09-10 Thread Kevin Grittner
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote: Oh, I see the distinction you're making: in PL/pgSQL, the exception mechanism involves *implicit* subtransaction rollbacks. That's more of a language issue, but a valid point. I think it holds for the general case of functions -- there's no reason to

Re: [HACKERS] build farm machine using make -j 8 mixed results

2012-09-10 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: And the answer is ... it's a gmake bug. Apparently introduced in 3.82. http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?30653 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835424 So I think .NOTPARALLEL is just masking the true problem, but nonetheless it's a problem. And given that the bug report on

Re: [HACKERS] build farm machine using make -j 8 mixed results

2012-09-10 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 09/10/2012 02:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: And the answer is ... it's a gmake bug. Apparently introduced in 3.82. http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?30653 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835424 So I think .NOTPARALLEL is just masking the true problem, but nonetheless it's a

Re: [HACKERS] Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol

2012-09-10 Thread Daniel Farina
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: The point of the proposal that I am making is to have a simple, low-maintenance solution for people who need a single-application database. A compromise somewhere in the middle isn't likely to be an improvement for

[HACKERS] ossp-uuid Contrib Patch

2012-09-10 Thread David E. Wheeler
Hackers, I ran into an issue building 9.2 with the OSSP UUID module today. A bit of Googling and I found that the MacPorts guys ran into the same issue a few weeks ago. Their discussion: https://trac.macports.org/ticket/35153 And the fix:

Re: [HACKERS] ossp-uuid Contrib Patch

2012-09-10 Thread Tom Lane
David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.com writes: I ran into an issue building 9.2 with the OSSP UUID module today. A bit of Googling and I found that the MacPorts guys ran into the same issue a few weeks ago. Their discussion: The long and the short of it is that the OSSP guys need to fix

Re: [HACKERS] ossp-uuid Contrib Patch

2012-09-10 Thread David E. Wheeler
On Sep 10, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: The long and the short of it is that the OSSP guys need to fix their code. I'm not excited about kluges like +#define _XOPEN_SOURCE which might band-aid around their mistake, but at what price? We have no idea what

Re: [HACKERS] ossp-uuid Contrib Patch

2012-09-10 Thread Tom Lane
David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.com writes: Well given that OSSP seems to be abandon ware (no activity since July 2008), it might be time to dump it in favor of something else. Yeah, maybe. It doesn't even seem to be the standard implementation on Linux or Mac. A bit of research says that

Re: [HACKERS] ossp-uuid Contrib Patch

2012-09-10 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 16:23 -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote: Well given that OSSP seems to be abandon ware (no activity since July 2008), it might be time to dump it in favor of something else. Are there any outstanding issues that would require an update? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing

Re: [HACKERS] ossp-uuid Contrib Patch

2012-09-10 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 20:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.com writes: Well given that OSSP seems to be abandon ware (no activity since July 2008), it might be time to dump it in favor of something else. Yeah, maybe. It doesn't even seem to be the standard

Re: [HACKERS] Question about SSI, subxacts, and aborted read-only xacts

2012-09-10 Thread Dan Ports
On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 11:34:56AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: If so, I think we need a documentation update. The serializable isolation level docs don't quite make it clear that serializability only applies to transactions that commit. It might not be obvious to a user that there's a difference

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

2012-09-10 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:19:00AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:06:18PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: It is this kind of run-around that caused me to generate my own doc build in the past; maybe I need to return to doing my own doc build. You keep threatening

Re: [HACKERS] 64-bit API for large object

2012-09-10 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
Ok, here is the patch to implement 64-bit API for large object, to allow to use up to 4TB large objects(or 16TB if BLCKSZ changed to 32KB). The patch is based on Jeremy Drake's patch posted on September 23, 2005 (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-09/msg01026.php) and reasonably

Re: [HACKERS] Question about SSI, subxacts, and aborted read-only xacts

2012-09-10 Thread Jeff Davis
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 21:59 -0400, Dan Ports wrote: It might be worth noting that serializable mode will not cause read-only transactions to fail to commit For the archives, and for those not following the paper in detail, there is one situation in which SSI will abort a read-only transaction.

[HACKERS] prefetching and asynchronous io

2012-09-10 Thread johnlumby
On 08/18/2012 10:11 AM, John Lumby wrote: I've recently tried extending the postgresql prefetch mechanism on linux to use the posix (i.e. librt) aio_read and friends where possible. In other words, in PrefetchBuffer(), try getting a buffer and issuing aio_read before falling back to