Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com writes:
On 7 April 2013 01:43, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Your interpretation matches mine all around. It is unfortunate
that we have hijacked the standard's syntax for arrays to add a
matrix feature.
It really is unfortunate. I wonder if it was
On 6 April 2013 08:40, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
AFAICS that could be easily avoided by doing a simple PageGetLSN() like we
used to, if checksums are not enabled. In XLogCheckBuffer:
/*
* XXX We assume page LSN is first data on *every* page that can
On 6 April 2013 15:44, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
* In xlog_redo, it seemed slightly awkward to call XLogRecGetData twice.
Merely a matter of preference but I thought I would mention it.
Youre absolutely right, memcpy should have gotten passed 'data', not
From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
But having said that, I'm wondering (without having read the patch)
why you need anything more than the existing resjunk field.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com writes:
[ trgm-regexp-0.15.patch.gz ]
I spent the weekend hacking on this, making a number of bug fixes and a
whole lot of cosmetic changes. I think there are large parts of this
On 03.04.2013 22:50, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Heikki Linnakangashlinnakan...@vmware.com
wrote:
On 03.04.2013 18:58, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Jeff Janesjeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
This commit introduced a problem with
On 8 April 2013 16:09, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com writes:
On the specific issue of CARDINALITY, I guess we need to decide
whether we are going to pretend that our array/matrix thing is
actually nested. I first argued that we should not. But it occurred
Rodrigo Barboza rodrigombu...@gmail.com writes:
UPDATE tm32 SET a = a + 1 WHERE a $i;
ERROR: unsupported type: 202886
I'm betting that's coming from scalargtsel, which doesn't know anything
about your type, but you've nominated it to be the selectivity function
for anyway.
/*
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Rodrigo Barboza rodrigombu...@gmail.com writes:
UPDATE tm32 SET a = a + 1 WHERE a $i;
ERROR: unsupported type: 202886
I'm betting that's coming from scalargtsel, which doesn't know anything
about your type, but you've
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
If there is anybody still using Postgres on machines without wcstombs() or
towlower(), and they have non-ASCII data indexed by pg_trgm, they'll need
to REINDEX those indexes after pg_upgrade to 9.3, else
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
The only reasonable answer for this (a provably used, non-security,
non-standards violating, non-gross functionality breakage case) is
*zero*. Our historically cavalier attitude towards compatibility
breakage has been
Joe Conway m...@joeconway.com writes:
Shouldn't that CREATE RULE be implicitly part of the CREATE EXTENSION?
Yes. It's a bug, been reported before, it's on my todo list. I have
arranged some time to care about it while in beta, I won't be able to
have at it before then…
Regards,
--
Dimitri
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Rodrigo Barboza rodrigombu...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Rodrigo Barboza rodrigombu...@gmail.com writes:
UPDATE tm32 SET a = a + 1 WHERE a $i;
ERROR: unsupported type: 202886
I'm betting that's
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
How exactly would you know whether the previous installation was built
without HAVE_WCSTOMBS/HAVE_TOWLOWER? That's not exposed anywhere
reliable. And it's not out of the question that somebody upgrading to
a newer PG version might upgrade his OS too, so I
On 04/08/2013 07:42 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Joe Conway m...@joeconway.com writes:
Shouldn't that CREATE RULE be implicitly part of the CREATE EXTENSION?
Yes. It's a bug, been reported before, it's on my todo list. I have
arranged some time to care about it while in beta, I won't be able
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Rodrigo Barboza rodrigombu...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Rodrigo Barboza
rodrigombu...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Rodrigo Barboza rodrigombu...@gmail.com writes:
UPDATE
Joe Conway m...@joeconway.com writes:
OK, maybe I'll try to take a look in the meantime.
That would be awesome :)
Did you have any comment on the other pg_dump patch (reviewed by Vibhor)?
This whole extension table filtering and dumping is more in Tom's realm,
so I guess that if you want to
On 7 Apr 2013, at 05:14, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Greg Jaskiewicz gryz...@me.com wrote:
Looking around the code Today, one of my helpful tools detected this dead
code.
As far as I can see, it is actually unused call to strlen() in
Hello,
We have been trying to figure out possible solutions to the following
problem in streaming replication Consider following scenario:
If master receives commit command, it writes and flushes commit WAL records
to the disk, It also writes and flushes data page related to this
transaction.
On 04/08/2013 05:34 AM, Samrat Revagade wrote:
One solution to avoid this situation is have the master send WAL
records to standby and wait for ACK from standby committing WAL files
to disk and only after that commit data page related to this
transaction on master.
Isn't this basically what
Samrat Revagade revagade.sam...@gmail.com writes:
We have been trying to figure out possible solutions to the following
problem in streaming replication Consider following scenario:
If master receives commit command, it writes and flushes commit WAL records
to the disk, It also writes and
On Apr 6, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:24 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.comwrote:
Incidentally, I bumped into another custom backup script just a few weeks
back that also excluded backup_label. I don't know what the author
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Shaun Thomas stho...@optionshouse.com wrote:
On 04/08/2013 05:34 AM, Samrat Revagade wrote:
One solution to avoid this situation is have the master send WAL
records to standby and wait for ACK from standby committing WAL files
to disk and only after that commit
2013/4/5 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
OK, I follow the manner of the terminology as we usually call it.
The attached patch just replaced things you suggested.
Thanks, I have committed this, after making some changes
On 2013-04-08 19:26:33 +0300, Ants Aasma wrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Shaun Thomas stho...@optionshouse.com wrote:
On 04/08/2013 05:34 AM, Samrat Revagade wrote:
One solution to avoid this situation is have the master send WAL
records to standby and wait for ACK from standby
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-04-08 19:26:33 +0300, Ants Aasma wrote:
Not exactly. Sync-rep ensures that commit success is not sent to the
client before a synchronous replica acks the commit record. What
Samrat is proposing here is that WAL
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Samrat Revagade
revagade.sam...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
We have been trying to figure out possible solutions to the following problem
in streaming replication Consider following scenario:
If master receives commit command, it writes and flushes commit WAL
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Rodrigo Barboza rodrigombu...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Rodrigo Barboza
rodrigombu...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Rodrigo Barboza rodrigombu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane
On 4/5/13 6:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Since gcc 4.8 is going to be on a lot of people's machines pretty soon,
I think we need to do something to prevent it from breaking 8.4.x and
9.0.x. It looks like our choices are (1) teach configure to enable
-fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations if the
On 09/04/13 08:41, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 4/5/13 6:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Since gcc 4.8 is going to be on a lot of people's machines pretty soon,
I think we need to do something to prevent it from breaking 8.4.x and
9.0.x. It looks like our choices are (1) teach configure to enable
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Rodrigo Barboza rodrigombu...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Rodrigo Barboza
rodrigombu...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Rodrigo Barboza rodrigombu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Rodrigo
Matthias Nagel matthias.h.na...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to do someting like:
FOREIGN KEY ( container_id, lifetime )
REFERENCES other_table (id, lifetime )
USING gist ( container_id WITH =, lifetime WITH @ )
(Of course, this is PosgreSQL-pseudo-code, but it hopefully make
clear what
All,
As much as I have a keen interest in this feature, it isn't (AFAIK)
being considered for 9.3. Given that it's generated a fair amount of
controversy, could we table it until 9.3 beta? There's still plenty of
unresolved 9.3 patches in the queue.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 04:24:31PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
All,
As much as I have a keen interest in this feature, it isn't (AFAIK)
being considered for 9.3. Given that it's generated a fair amount of
controversy, could we table it until 9.3 beta? There's still plenty of
unresolved 9.3
Hello,
While walking in the code I see the following code in
src/backend/access/transam/xlogreader.c:177-191
XLogRecord *
XLogReadRecord(XLogReaderState *state, XLogRecPtr RecPtr, char **errormsg)
{
XLogRecord *record;
XLogRecPtr targetPagePtr;
bool
On 9 April 2013 09:24, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
As much as I have a keen interest in this feature, it isn't (AFAIK)
being considered for 9.3. Given that it's generated a fair amount of
controversy, could we table it until 9.3 beta? There's still plenty of
unresolved 9.3 patches
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Ants Aasma a...@cybertec.at wrote:
Unless somebody tells me not to waste my time I'll go ahead and come
up with a workable patch by Monday.
And here you go. I decided to be verbose with the comments as it's
easier to delete a comment to write one. I also left in
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
I still have one more doubt, consider the below scenario for cases when we
Invalidate buffers during moving to freelist v/s just move to freelist
Backend got the buffer from freelist for a request of page-9 (number 9
Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I spent the weekend hacking on this, making a number of bug fixes and a
whole lot of cosmetic changes. I think there are large parts of this
that are in committable shape now,
39 matches
Mail list logo
