On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Andreas Karlsson andr...@proxel.se wrote:
On 12/29/2013 08:24 AM, David Rowley wrote:
If it was possible to devise some way to reuse any
previous tuplesortstate perhaps just inventing a reset method which
clears out tuples, then we could see performance
On 30 December 2013 19:52, Christian Kruse christ...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I created two patches..
Patches are related but separate, so should be tracked on separate
threads. Please add them to the CF app also.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL
On 12/31/2013 09:18 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
While mulling this over further, I had an idea about this: suppose we
marked the tuple in some fashion that indicates that it's a promise
tuple. I imagine an
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
1. PromiseTupleInsertionLockAcquire(my xid)
2. Insert heap tuple
3. Insert index tuples
4. Check if conflict happened. Kill the already-inserted tuple on conflict.
5. PromiseTupleInsertionLockRelease(my xid)
Hi there,
I created a patch improving the log_lock_wait messages by adding
relation infos (name and OID) as well as tuple infos (if present –
ctid and, if available, the tuple itself) in the context.
Sample output (log_lock_waits=on required):
session 1:
CREATE TABLE foo (val integer);
INSERT
Hi,
On 31/12/13 08:48, Simon Riggs wrote:
I created two patches..
Patches are related but separate, so should be tracked on separate
threads.
[x] Done (in 20131231091244.gb25...@defunct.ch)
Please add them to the CF app also.
[x] Done. I modified the existing commitfest entry
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Are you suggesting that I lock the tuple only (say, through a special
LockPromiseTuple() call), or lock the tuple *and* call
XactLockTableWait() afterwards? You and Robert don't seem to be in
agreement about
Hello
I am looking on this patch
ALTER TABLE foo SET (ext.somext.do_replicate=true);
Why is there fixed prefix ext ?
This feature is similar to attaching setting to function
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION ... SET var = ...;
We can use someprefix.someguc without problems there.
Regards
Pavel
2013/12/31 Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org
On 12/31/2013 02:38 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Before proceeding the work, I would like to make sure that followings
are complete list of new functions. Inside parentheses are
corresponding original functions.
toregproc (regproc)
toregoper
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello
I am looking on this patch
ALTER TABLE foo SET (ext.somext.do_replicate=true);
Why is there fixed prefix ext ?
This feature is similar to attaching setting to function
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION ... SET
2013/12/31 Fabrízio de Royes Mello fabriziome...@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello
I am looking on this patch
ALTER TABLE foo SET (ext.somext.do_replicate=true);
Why is there fixed prefix ext ?
This feature is
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
2013/12/31 Fabrízio de Royes Mello fabriziome...@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello
I am looking on this patch
ALTER TABLE foo SET
2013/12/31 Fabrízio de Royes Mello fabriziome...@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
2013/12/31 Fabrízio de Royes Mello fabriziome...@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
David Rowley escribió:
I was about to test it tonight, but I'm having trouble getting the patch to
compile... I'm really wondering which compiler you are using as it seems
you're declaring your variables in some strange places.. See nodeSort.c
line 101. These variables are declared after
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
2013/12/31 Fabrízio de Royes Mello fabriziome...@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
2013/12/31 Fabrízio de Royes Mello fabriziome...@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec
On 31 December 2013 09:12, Christian Kruse christ...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Output w/o patch:
LOG: process 24774 acquired ShareLock on transaction 696 after 11688.720 ms
Output with patch:
LOG: process 24774 acquired ShareLock on transaction 696 after 11688.720 ms
CONTEXT: relation
2013/12/31 Fabrízio de Royes Mello fabriziome...@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
2013/12/31 Fabrízio de Royes Mello fabriziome...@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 31 December 2013 09:12, Christian Kruse christ...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Output with patch:
LOG: process 24774 acquired ShareLock on transaction 696 after 11688.720 ms
CONTEXT: relation name: foo (OID 16385)
tuple (ctid (0,1)): (1)
That is
On 31 December 2013 16:36, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 31 December 2013 09:12, Christian Kruse christ...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Output with patch:
LOG: process 24774 acquired ShareLock on transaction 696 after 11688.720 ms
CONTEXT:
Mark Dilger markdil...@yahoo.com writes:
In src/include/pgstat.h, the PGSTAT_NUM_TABENTRIES macro
attempts to subtract off the size of the PgStat_MsgTabstat
struct up to the m_entry[] field. This macro was correct up
until the fields m_block_read_time and m_block_write_time
were added to
I don't care for the places in the code that say things like
foo - sizeof(int)
where int refers implicitly to a specific variable or struct field, but
you have to remember that and change it by hand if you change the
type of the variable or struct.
But this sort of code is quite common in
Mark Dilger markdil...@yahoo.com writes:
I don't care for the places in the code that say things like
foo - sizeof(int)
where int refers implicitly to a specific variable or struct field, but
you have to remember that and change it by hand if you change the
type of the variable or
Hello
I am working on plpgsql_check and I would to write a protection against
repeated check - so I need to mark a compiled (cached) function. Now,
plpgsql extension can store own data to exec state, and I would to some
similar for plpgsql_function. I believe so it can be useful for any plpgsql
Pavel Stehule escribió:
Hello
I am working on plpgsql_check and I would to write a protection against
repeated check - so I need to mark a compiled (cached) function. Now,
plpgsql extension can store own data to exec state, and I would to some
similar for plpgsql_function. I believe so it
A quick grep through the code reveals lots of examples,
so I'll just paste the first ones I notice. There are
references to sizeof(Oid), sizeof(uint32), sizeof(bool),
and sizeof(uint8) that clearly refer to fields in structs that
the macros refer to implicitly, but there is no way for the
2013/12/31 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
Pavel Stehule escribió:
Hello
I am working on plpgsql_check and I would to write a protection against
repeated check - so I need to mark a compiled (cached) function. Now,
plpgsql extension can store own data to exec state, and I would
This is not entirely pie in the sky, but feel free to tell me why this is
crazy. I
have had this idea for several years, but have not seen anyone else suggest it,
nor any arguments why it would not work.
If we had 64-bit Oids, we could reserve the top 16 bits (for instance) to
indicate a
Mark Dilger wrote:
This is not entirely pie in the sky, but feel free to tell me why this is
crazy.
Have you seen http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/BDR ?
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services
--
Sent via
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
Requested feature doesn't help me implement this concept 100%, but helps
with check If I worked with some instance of function or not. And inside
core a implementation is cheap. Outside core it is a magic with hash and
checking transaction id
Etsuro Fujita fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes:
[ pathkey_and_uniqueindx_v7_20131203.patch ]
I started to look at this patch. I don't understand the reason for the
foreach loop in index_pathkeys_are_extensible (and the complete lack of
comments in the patch isn't helping). Isn't it
The BDR documentation
http://wiki.postgresql.org/images/7/75/BDR_Presentation_PGCon2012.pdf
says,
Physical replication forces us to use just one
node: multi-master required for write scalability
Physical replication provides best read scalability
I am inclined to agree with the
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Christian Kruse
christ...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I created a patch improving the log_lock_wait messages by adding
relation infos (name and OID) as well as tuple infos (if present –
ctid and, if available, the tuple itself) in the context.
I think that this is a
Peter pointed out in
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/527c0fe9.7000...@gmx.net
that Kyotaro-san's patch to treat unique indexes as satisfying any sort
condition that they are a prefix of broke the drop-index-concurrently-1
isolation test. The latest iterations of the patch respond to that by
2013/12/31 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
Requested feature doesn't help me implement this concept 100%, but helps
with check If I worked with some instance of function or not. And inside
core a implementation is cheap. Outside core it is a magic
On 12/28/2013 04:51 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
I've compiled it with clang. Yeah, there was mixed declarations. I've
rechecked it with gcc, now it gives no warnings. I didn't try it with
visual studio, but I hope it will be OK.
I looked at this version of the patch and noticed a possibility
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/12/31 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
I'm not sure I understand this. Do you want to avoid running the
checker if a previous run was seen as successful and function has not
changed? Suppose the
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Joel Jacobson j...@trustly.com wrote:
Hi,
I've tried to fix some bugs reported by Andrey Karpov in an article at
http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0227/
The value returned by socket() is unsigned on Windows and can thus not
be checked if less than zero to detect an
37 matches
Mail list logo
