On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Rowley wrote:
> I did some benchmarking earlier in the week for the new patch which was
> just commited to allow formatting in the log_line_prefix string. In version
> 0.4 of the patch there was some performance regression as I was doing
> appendStringInfo(b
Le 30/09/2013 05:43, Alvaro Herrera a écrit :
> Gilles Darold escribió:
>
>> +else if (strcmp(param, "numericlocale") == 0)
>> +{
>> +if (popt->topt.numericLocale)
>> +puts(_("Locale-adjusted numeric output (numericlocale)
>> is on."));
>> +else
(2013/09/30 13:55), Amit Kapila wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
Yep, please! It's really helpful!
OK! I test with single instance and synchronous replication constitution.
By the way, you posted patch which is sync_file_range() WAL writing method in 3
years ago. I
On 12.08.2013 21:08, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2013/8/10 Tom Lane:
Pavel Stehule writes:
I found so there are no simple API for working with LO from PL without
access to file system.
What? See lo_open(), loread(), lowrite(), etc.
yes, so there are three problems with these functions:
a) proba
2013/9/30 Heikki Linnakangas
> On 12.08.2013 21:08, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>> 2013/8/10 Tom Lane:
>>
>>> Pavel Stehule>
>>> writes:
>>>
I found so there are no simple API for working with LO from PL without
access to file system.
>>>
>>> What? See lo_open(), loread(), lowrite(),
Hi
2013/9/30 Gilles Darold :
(...)
> That's right, here is the patch modified with just a little change with
> your suggestion:
>
> if (popt->topt.numericLocale)
> printf(_("Locale-adjusted numeric output (%s) is
> on.\n"), param);
> else
>
On 27.09.2013 21:43, Greg Stark wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
Yeah, we obviously kept things simpler when adding forks in order to get the
feature out the door. There's improvements that need to be made. But IMHO
that's not reason to automatically avoid forks; we n
What would it take to abstract the minmax indexes to allow maintaing a
bounding box for points, instead of a plain min/max? Or for ranges. In
other words, why is this restricted to b-tree operators?
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes
> Also, for onlookers, I have changed this patch around to do the
> date-oriented stuff but want to look it over before stapling it up and
> sending it. If one cannot wait, one can look at
> https://github.com/fdr/postgres/tree/queryid. The squashed-version of
> that history contains a reasonable
On 09/22/2013 02:17 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>> There is no pg_sleep(text) function and the cast is unknown->double
>> precision.
>
> My mistake.
>
> As I understand it, pg_sleep('12') currently works and would not
> anymore once your patch is applied. That is the concern raised by
> R
Steve Singer wrote:
> How about
>
> To support matching of rows which include elements without a default
> B-tree operator class, the following operators are defined for composite
> type comparison:
> *=,
> *<>,
> *<,
> *<=,
> *>, and
> *>=.
>
> These operators c
On 9/27/13 3:00 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Attached is simplified patch that replaces the spinlock with a read
> barrier based on a suggestion made by Andres offlist.
This patch doesn't apply.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscri
On 29.09.2013 23:32, Nicholas White wrote:
bms_add_member() is an accident waiting to happen
I've attached a patch that makes it use repalloc as suggested
You'll have to zero out the extended portion.
I tried to demonstrate that by setting RANDOMIZE_ALLOCATED_MEMORY, but
surprisingly regres
Hi,
Changeset extraction only works in the context of a single database but
has to scan through xlog records from multiple databases. Most records
are easy to skip because they contain the database in the relfilenode or
are just not interesting for logical replication. The only exception are
compa
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I don't have another idea either. In fact, I'd go so far as to say
>>> that doing any third thing that's better than those two to any
>>> reasonable person is obviously impossible. Bu
Please remove the tabs from the SGML files.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 9/28/13 3:05 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Now as we have an agreement, I had updated patch for below left issues:
Regression tests are failing.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hac
Nicholas White escribió:
> > But even if we did decide to switch memory contexts on every call, it would
> > still be much cleaner than this.
>
> I've removed all the bms_initalize code from the patch and am using
> this solution. As the partition memory is zero-initialised I just
> store a Bitm
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 02:17:39PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> What would it take to abstract the minmax indexes to allow maintaing
> a bounding box for points, instead of a plain min/max? Or for
> ranges. In other words, why is this restricted to b-tree operators?
If I had to guess, I'd gu
David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 02:17:39PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > What would it take to abstract the minmax indexes to allow maintaing
> > a bounding box for points, instead of a plain min/max? Or for
> > ranges. In other words, why is this restricted to b-tree operators
--On 27. September 2013 09:57:07 +0200 Andres Freund
wrote:
Ok, was free:
padding + 16 partitions:
tps = 147884.648416
padding + 32 partitions:
tps = 141777.841125
padding + 64 partitions:
tps = 141561.539790
padding + 16 partitions + new lwlocks
tps = 601895.580903 (yeha, still reprodu
Hi,
On 2013-09-30 18:54:11 +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
> HEAD (default):
>
> tps = 181738.607247 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 182665.993063 (excluding connections establishing)
>
> HEAD (padding + 16 partitions + your lwlocks patch applied):
>
> tps = 269328.259833 (including con
On 30.09.2013 19:49, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 02:17:39PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
What would it take to abstract the minmax indexes to allow maintaing
a bounding box for points, instead of a plain min/max? Or for
ranges. In other words, why is th
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Changeset extraction only works in the context of a single database but
> has to scan through xlog records from multiple databases. Most records
> are easy to skip because they contain the database in the relfilenode or
> are just not intere
On Sep 30, 2013 4:39 AM, "Sameer Thakur" wrote:
>
> > Also, for onlookers, I have changed this patch around to do the
> > date-oriented stuff but want to look it over before stapling it up and
> > sending it. If one cannot wait, one can look at
> > https://github.com/fdr/postgres/tree/queryid. T
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 9/28/13 3:05 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Now as we have an agreement, I had updated patch for below left issues:
>
> Regression tests are failing.
Thanks for informing. I am sorry for not running regression before
sending patch.
R
Le 30/09/2013 17:35, Peter Eisentraut a écrit :
> Please remove the tabs from the SGML files.
Done. I've also fixed the typo reported by Ian. Here is the attached v4
patch.
Thanks a lot for your review.
Regards,
--
Gilles Darold
Administrateur de bases de données
http://dalibo.com - http://dal
I've been following this issue these last few months.
Having the latest and best compressors built-in is a fashionable features
these days. And for good reasons.
I'm quite amazed that this issue is still considered a "legal risk".
To put this in perspective, the *whole world* is using LZ4 by now.
On 2013-09-30 14:22:22 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > Changeset extraction only works in the context of a single database but
> > has to scan through xlog records from multiple databases. Most records
> > are easy to skip because they cont
Andres Freund wrote:
> Attached you can find an updated version of the series taking in some of
> the review comments
I don't know whether this is related to the previously-reported
build problems, but when I apply each patch in turn, with make -j4
world && make check-world for each step, I die
Hi Etsuro,
Sorry for the delay but I have been very busy with work. I have been
away from postgres for a while, so I will need a little time to review
the code and make sure I give you an informed response. I'll get back to
you as soon as I am able. Thanks for understanding.
Ian Link
--On 30. September 2013 19:00:06 +0200 Andres Freund
wrote:
HEAD (default):
tps = 181738.607247 (including connections establishing)
tps = 182665.993063 (excluding connections establishing)
HEAD (padding + 16 partitions + your lwlocks patch applied):
tps = 269328.259833 (including connec
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 01:41:01PM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >I don't get it; why is taking the time just after pthread_create() more sane
> >than taking it just before pthread_create()?
>
> Thread create time seems to be expensive as well, maybe up 0.1
> seconds under some conditions (?). Und
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I doubt that any change to HeapTupleSatisfiesMVCC() will be
>>> acceptable. This feature needs to restrain itself to behavior changes
>>> that only affect users of this feature, I think.
>>
>> I agree with the principle of what you're saying
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 08:58:36AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > I don't know whether writing it as binary will help or hurt that situation.
> > If nothing else, binary gives you one less variation to think about when
> > studying the code.
>
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> What confuses me is that pg_read_barrier() is just a compiler barrier on
> x86[-64] in barrier.h. According to my knowledge it needs to be an
> lfence or the full barrier?
> The linked papers from Paul McKenney - which are a great read - see
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> If you think it's a bit odd that we lock every value while the user
> essentially has one constraint in mind when writing their DML,
> consider:
I should add to that list:
4) Locking all the values at once is necessary for the behavior of
Just found this in my drafts folder. Sorry for the late response.
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I am entirely unconvinced that we need this. Some people use acquire
> + release fences, some people use read + write fences, and there are
> all combinations (read-acquire, re
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 11:40:51AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> Shouldn't we do it for Set Constraints as well?
> >
> > Oh, very good point. I missed that one. Updated patch attached.
I am glad you are seeing things I am not. :-)
> 1. The function set_config also needs similar functionality,
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 03:34:20PM -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >> The arguments for this patch are
> >> * We want the materialized view to return the same value as
> >> would be returned if the query were executed directly. This not
> >> only means that the values should be the same according t
Review of the PL/Tcl part: The functionality looks OK. There are some
cosmetic issues. If those are addressed, I think this can be committed.
In the documentation, "Event Triggers" -> "Event triggers".
For the example in the documentation, please show the output, that is,
what the trigger outp
While reading documentation for SET command, I observed that FROM
CURRENT syntax and its description is missing from SET command's
syntax page (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/sql-set.html).
Do you think that documentation should be updated for the same or is
there any reason why it is
Amit Kapila-2 wrote
> While reading documentation for SET command, I observed that FROM
> CURRENT syntax and its description is missing from SET command's
> syntax page (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/sql-set.html).
>
> Do you think that documentation should be updated for the same or
43 matches
Mail list logo
