I am sending updated patch - buggy statement is printed via more logical
psql_error function instead printf
Thank you for updating patch, I really appreciate your efforts.
Now, everything is good from my side.
* it apply cleanly to the current git master
* includes necessary docs
* I think It
At 2014-06-25 16:13:19 +0900, masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Categorizing this parameter to CONN_AUTH_SETTINGS looks strange to me
Oh yes. Sorry, I meant to respond to this point in my original review,
but forgot. Yes, CONN_AUTH_SETTINGS is just weird. But I couldn't find
an obviously better
2014-06-26 8:22 GMT+02:00 Samrat Revagade revagade.sam...@gmail.com:
I am sending updated patch - buggy statement is printed via more logical
psql_error function instead printf
Thank you for updating patch, I really appreciate your efforts.
Now, everything is good from my side.
* it apply
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen a...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
At 2014-06-25 16:13:19 +0900, masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Categorizing this parameter to CONN_AUTH_SETTINGS looks strange to me
Oh yes. Sorry, I meant to respond to this point in my original review,
but forgot.
On 06/24/2014 01:27 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-06-23 13:00:11 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Fri, 2014-06-20 at 09:10 +, Andres Freund wrote:
To fix, simply move all the all-visible handling outside the critical
section. Doing so means that the PD_ALL_VISIBLE on the page won't be
At 2014-06-25 10:36:07 -0400, sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
To me, that's ridiculous on the face of it. Other databases have had
this kind of capability as a matter of course for decades- we are far
behind in this area.
OK, I've done a bit more thinking, but I'm not convinced that it's so
Re: Amit Kapila 2014-06-26
caa4ek1+zt_uo-z7wjp2yznv7aytxgbqgp23wcmpub9sdmgy...@mail.gmail.com
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:56 PM, Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com wrote:
On 06/25/2014 03:04 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
Currently you can achieve that by
ALTER SYSTEM RESET guc = Default;.
On 25 June 2014 15:40, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Abhijit Menon-Sen (a...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
At 2014-06-25 00:10:55 -0400, sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
For my part, the nexts steps might be to consider how you'd migrate
what you've provided for configuration into catalog
On 23 June 2014 21:51, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
I also wouldn't want this to become
an excuse to not improve our current logging infrastructure, which is
how we got to the place we are wrt partitioning, imv.
Not the case at all.
I wrote the existing partitioning code in 6
Re: Amit Kapila 2014-06-26
CAA4eK1+mUTjc=GXJK3bYtSwV2BmBni=phevbqlqkhduv9cw...@mail.gmail.com
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Christoph Berg c...@df7cb.de wrote:
Re: Amit Kapila 2014-06-25
caa4ek1+f9ztogvvw-wyj2+vt0k8_jxtziqhp8ivb7wdo1w1...@mail.gmail.com
I think maintaining values
Changes in amcanreturn() interface to support multicolumn indexes.
Hi, hackers
I work on GSoC project Support_for_Index-only_scans_for_GIST_GSoC_2014
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Support_for_Index-only_scans_for_GIST_GSoC_2014
There is a question of support multicolumn index only scans for
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 17 June 2014 11:04, David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
As a point of procedure, I recommend separating the semijoin support
into
its
On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 00:27 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
Can you explain? It looks like the master will still see the bit right
away after the HEAP2_CLEAN record, but there is nothing in the
HEAP2_CLEAN record to tell the standby to set all-visible. The standby
has to wait until the
On 06/26/2014 06:45 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
The point of this feature, AFAICS, is to detect clients that are failing
to issue another query or close their transaction as a result of bad
client logic. It's not to protect against network glitches.
If so, the document should explain that
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 23 June 2014 12:06, David Rowley dgrow...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not clear to me where you get the term sortclause from. This is
either the groupclause or distinctclause, but in the test cases you
provide this
On 14/06/25 23:36, Stephen Frost wrote:
Other databases have had this kind of capability as a
matter of course for decades- we are far behind in this area.
On a related note, MySQL/MariaDB have had some sort of auditing
capability for, well, months. By no means as sophisticated as
some of the
On 26 June 2014 10:01, David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you comment on the transitive closure question? Should we add a
test for that, whether or not it works yet?
In my previous email.
I could change the the following to use c.id in the targetlist and group by
clause, but I'm
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:52 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
To be clearer, what I mean is we use only the direct proof approach,
for queries like this
SELECT * FROM a WHERE id NOT IN(SELECT unknown_col FROM b WHERE
unknown_col IS NOT
On 2014-06-26 10:39:01 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 06/24/2014 01:27 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Does your change still make
sense to you and do you see problem with the current state (as of ecac0e2b)?
Hmm, in the current state, it's again possible that the full-page image
doesn't
On 26 June 2014 10:31, David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com wrote:
If there's no way to tell that the target entry comes from a left join, then
would it be a bit too quirky to just do the NOT NULL checking when
list_length(query-rtable) == 1 ? or maybe even loop over query-rtable and
abort if we
The patch looks somewhat complicated and bugs can be easily introduced
because it tries to not only add new feature but also reorganize the main
loop in HandleCopyStream at the same time. To keep the patch simple, I'm
thinking to firstly apply the attached patch which just refactors the
main
On 2014-06-25 20:16:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Since it better be legal to manipulate a atomic variable while holding a
spinlock we cannot simply use an arbitrary spinlock as backing for
atomics. That'd possibly
On 2014-06-25 20:22:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
I think having a separate file for each architecture is nice. I totally
agree that they don't belong in src/include/storage, though. s_lock.h has
always been
On 25/06/14 19:43, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
Hi,
I send you review comment about thie patch.
Hello, thanks.
--
$ pg_resetxlog -s -n data | grep Database system identifier
Database system identifier: 6028907917695471865
The -s option does not worksfine with -n option.
Fixed.
--
On Jun 25, 2014, at 22:14, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wrote:
Michael Glaesemann g...@seespotcode.net writes:
-- ERROR: could not find pathkey item to sort
Hm ... I can reproduce that in 9.3 but it seems fine in 9.4 and HEAD.
Don't know what's going on exactly.
Interesting ---
Hello all,
today I had to work with one slow query - when I checked different
scenarios I found a dependency on work_mem size - but it is atypical -
bigger work_mem increased query execution 31 minutes (600MB work mem) and 1
minute (1MB).
db_kost07e2d9cdmg20b1takpqntobo6ghj=# set work_mem to
Thanks for sharing latest patch.
For me this syntax is limiting the current returning clause implementation.
Because its not allowing the returning PRIMARY KEYS with other columns, and
if user or application require that they need to do RETURNING *. Following
syntax not working, which i think is
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-06-25 20:16:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Since it better be legal to manipulate a atomic variable while holding a
spinlock we
On 2014-06-26 07:44:14 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-06-25 20:16:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Since it better be legal to
Hello,
From: Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
fixed
Thank you. All is fine.
should be Environment variables. And this section lacks description
for Windows, such as:
+ printf(_( NAME=VALUE [NAME=VALUE] psql ...\n or \\setenv NAME
[VALUE]
in interactive mode\n\n));
+ printf(_(
On 06/24/2014 05:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
diff --git a/src/backend/storage/smgr/md.c b/src/backend/storage/smgr/md.c
index 3c1c81a..4264373 100644
--- a/src/backend/storage/smgr/md.c
+++ b/src/backend/storage/smgr/md.c
@@ -219,6 +219,16 @@ mdinit(void)
2014-06-26 15:26 GMT+02:00 MauMau maumau...@gmail.com:
Hello,
From: Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
fixed
Thank you. All is fine.
should be Environment variables. And this section lacks description
for Windows, such as:
+ printf(_( NAME=VALUE [NAME=VALUE] psql ...\n or
Abhijit,
* Abhijit Menon-Sen (a...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
Ian looked into the auditing capabilities of various (SQL and otherwise)
systems some time ago. Informix handles its auditing configuration
entirely outside the database. DB2 uses a mixture of in-database and
external configuration.
Simon,
* Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
Which tables are audited would be available via the reloptions
field.
RLS could be implemented through reloptions too. Would it be useful to
some people? Likely. Would it satisfy the users who, today, are
actually asking for that feature?
Hello,
Let me comment on this patch.
It can be applied on head of the master branch, built and run
regression test successfully.
What this patch tries to do is quite simple and obvious.
It suggests operating system to distribute physical pages to
every numa nodes on allocation.
One thing I
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 12:20:06PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-06-25 20:16:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Since it better be legal to manipulate a atomic variable while holding a
spinlock we cannot
I asked a question over on StackOverflow, and Craig Ringer told me to
report it here.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24413161/how-can-i-prevent-materialized-views-from-refreshing-during-pg-restore
I have created a dump of the database using pg_dump in custom format
(-Fc). This format allows
On 06/26/2014 05:07 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:56 PM, Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com
mailto:vik.fear...@dalibo.com wrote:
On 06/25/2014 03:04 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
Currently you can achieve that by
ALTER SYSTEM RESET guc = Default;.
However it will be good to
bithead wrote
I asked a question over on StackOverflow, and Craig Ringer told me to
report it here.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24413161/how-can-i-prevent-materialized-views-from-refreshing-during-pg-restore
I have created a dump of the database using pg_dump in custom format
I think this (pg_restore -l | pg_restore -L) will get me where I need to
go for now by inserting a small shell script in between that pushes the
materialized views to the end of the list, but then I will also have to
manage my own dependencies for the items that I re-sort (MatViews of
MatViews).
Hi,
Dne 2014-06-26 14:10, Pavel Stehule napsal:
Hello all,
today I had to work with one slow query - when I checked different
scenarios I found a dependency on work_mem size - but it is atypical -
bigger work_mem increased query execution 31 minutes (600MB work mem)
and 1 minute (1MB).
The
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
One thing I concern is, it may conflict with numa-balancing
features that is supported in the recent Linux kernel; that
migrates physical pages according to the location of tasks
which references the page beyond the numa
On 06/25/2014 02:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Why do we have essentially duplicate pg_proc entries for json_extract_path
and json_extract_path_op? The latter is undocumented and seems only to be
used as the infrastructure for the # operator. I see that only the
former is marked variadic, but AFAIK
Claudio Freire klaussfre...@gmail.com wrote:
Sadly, it excludes the OS cache explicitly (when it mentions libc.so),
which is one of the hottest sources of memory bandwidth consumption in
a database.
Agreed. On the bright side, the packagers and/or sysadmins can fix this
without any changes
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote:
Instead of doing it this way, we could instead do:
ALTER ROLE role1 ADD POLICY p1;
ALTER ROLE role2 ADD POLICY p2;
We could possibly allow multiple policies to be set for the same user,
but given an error (or OR
On 26 June 2014 14:59, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
I think this will paint us into a corner such that we won't be able to
add the capabilities which the users who are most concerned about
auditing require.
I'm sorry, but this seems exactly the wrong way around to me.
The point
On 06/23/2014 06:45 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2014-06-23 18:39 GMT+02:00 Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com
mailto:vik.fear...@dalibo.com:
On 06/23/2014 06:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Pavel Stehule
pavel.steh...@gmail.com
Anastasia Lubennikova lubennikov...@gmail.com writes:
There is a question of support multicolumn index only scans for GIST.
gistcanreturn() can return true if fetch is implemented for all indexed
columns and false otherwise.
But that's not very good case for multicolumn indexes.
I think, it
Thank you for updating the patch.
I think that the following behaviour of pg_resetxlog is bug.
$ pg_controldata data | grep Database system identifier
Database system identifier: 6029284919152642525
--
$ pg_resetxlog -s0 -n data
Current pg_control values:
pg_control version number:
David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com writes:
If there's no way to tell that the target entry comes from a left join,
then would it be a bit too quirky to just do the NOT NULL checking when
list_length(query-rtable) == 1 ? or maybe even loop over query-rtable and
abort if we find an outer join
* Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 26 June 2014 14:59, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
I think this will paint us into a corner such that we won't be able to
add the capabilities which the users who are most concerned about
auditing require.
I'm sorry, but this seems
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-06-25 20:16:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Since it better be legal to manipulate a atomic variable while holding a
spinlock we
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 7:21 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-06-25 20:22:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
I think having a separate file for each architecture is nice. I totally
agree that
Attached is v2 of the patch, with some cleanups / minor improvements:
* improved comments, whitespace fixed / TODOs etc.
* tracking inital # of buckets (similar to initial # of batches)
* adding info about buckets to EXPLAIN ANALYZE, similar to batches - I
didn't want to make it overly complex,
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-06-25 20:16:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I think that's going to fall afoul of Tom's previously-articulated no
loops inside spinlocks rule. Most atomics, by nature,
On 2014-06-26 11:47:15 -0700, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-06-25 20:16:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I think that's going to fall afoul of Tom's previously-articulated no
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 06/25/2014 02:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Why do we have essentially duplicate pg_proc entries for json_extract_path
and json_extract_path_op?
Likewise for json_extract_path_text_op, jsonb_extract_path_op, and
jsonb_extract_path_text_op.
ISTR trying
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Would it be practical to say that the coding rule is that you can only
use atomic ops on fields that are protected by the spinlock, ie, nobody
else is supposed to be touching those
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
As part of GSoC2014 I'm sending a patch to add the capability of change an
unlogged table to logged [1].
Hi all,
As part of GSoC2014 and with agreement of my mentor and reviewer (Stephen
Frost)
Hello,
I went through the patch, seems mostly fine, I adjusted some wording,
removed the default .pgpass file info since it's not accurate, and
replaced couple of phrases with (hopefully) more informative ones.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL
Here is v2,
with fixed documentation and numeric version of the implementation.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml
index f475458..38330d4 100644
---
On 27/06/14 00:12, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
Thanks for sharing latest patch.
For me this syntax is limiting the current returning clause
implementation.
Because its not allowing the returning PRIMARY KEYS with other
columns, and
if user or application require that they need to do RETURNING *.
Hi,
I just spent 20+ hours debugging a elusive problem which only happened
under heavy concurrency. Slight changes to the code made it
disappear. In the end it turned out that gcc liked to move *one*
instruction across the SpinLockRelease() - and only sometimes. Unrelated
changes made the vanish.
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I think we should rework things so that we fall back to
pg_write_barrier(), (*((volatile slock_t *) (lock)) = 0) instead of what
we have right now.
Surely it had better be a read barrier as well? And S_LOCK the same?
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Dilip kumar dilip.ku...@huawei.com wrote:
Thank you for giving your time, Please review the updated patch attached in
the mail.
1. Rebased the patch
2. Implemented parallel execution for new option --analyze-in-stages
Hi Dilip,
Thanks for
On 06/26/2014 03:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 06/25/2014 02:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Why do we have essentially duplicate pg_proc entries for json_extract_path
and json_extract_path_op?
Likewise for json_extract_path_text_op, jsonb_extract_path_op, and
On 2014-06-26 14:13:07 -0700, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I think we should rework things so that we fall back to
pg_write_barrier(), (*((volatile slock_t *) (lock)) = 0) instead of what
we have right now.
Surely it had better be a read barrier as well?
On 26.6.2014 20:43, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Attached is v2 of the patch, with some cleanups / minor improvements:
* there's a single FIXME, related to counting tuples in the
Meh, I couldn't resist resolving this FIXME, so attached is v3 of the
patch. This just adds a proper 'batch tuples' counter
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 06/26/2014 03:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Do we actually want to document these things as both operators and
functions? If we do, then the right answer is to list them as known
exceptions in the opr_sanity test, not to hide the fact that we're
On 25 June 2014 08:13, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen a...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
The patch looks OK, and works as advertised (I tested on Linux). If we
want the feature (I like it), this patch is a good enough way to get it.
I
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-06-26 14:13:07 -0700, Tom Lane wrote:
Surely it had better be a read barrier as well?
I don't immediately see why it has to be read barrier? Hoisting a load
from after the release into the locked area of code should be safe?
No doubt, but
Hi,
On 2014-06-26 23:01:10 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
I think we should rework things so that we fall back to
pg_write_barrier(), (*((volatile slock_t *) (lock)) = 0) instead of what
we have right now.
That'd require to make barrier.h independent from s_lock.h, but I think
that'd be a
On 26/06/14 19:57, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
$ pg_resetxlog -s0 data
Transaction log reset
$ pg_controldata data | grep Database system identifier
Database system identifier: 6029284919152642525
this patch dose not works fine with -s0.
Yes, this is a bug, 0 input should throw error,
On 06/21/2014 02:03 PM, David Rowley wrote:
I'm marking this Waiting on Author pending discussion on pushing down
entire expressions, but on the whole I think this is pretty much ready.
As I said above, I don't think playing around with that code is really
work for this patch. It
On 2014-06-26 15:40:11 -0700, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-06-26 14:13:07 -0700, Tom Lane wrote:
Surely it had better be a read barrier as well?
I don't immediately see why it has to be read barrier? Hoisting a load
from after the release into the
Hi,
I have spent some time reviewing the code. It applies well and PG master
branch build fine with setting extraver or keep it undefined. I have
observed the following output applying the patch i.e.
*Keeping extraver undefined* :
C:\PG\postgresql\inst_withpatch_no_extra-versionbin\psql.exe -d
On 06/24/2014 03:20 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
I've tried your 0001 patch, reflecting this refactoring, on Linux and it
caused 'make check' to hang at 'starting postmaster'.
I found the bug in the code, and I have attached the a patch which you
can apply on top of the patch. The regression tests
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Asif Naeem anaeem...@gmail.com wrote:
I have spent some time reviewing the code. It applies well and PG master
branch build fine with setting extraver or keep it undefined.
Thanks for reviewing that.
I have observed the following output applying the patch
On 27 June 2014 06:14, Gavin Flower gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz wrote:
On 27/06/14 00:12, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
INSERT INTO dept VALUES (10,'ACCOUNTING','NEW YORK') returning primary
key, dname;
I think allowing other columns with PRIMARY KEY would be more useful
syntax.
Even in later
Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com writes:
This latest patch is ready for a committer to look at now. The weird
comments have been changed, superfluous regression tests removed, and
nothing done about expression pushdown per (brief) discussion.
I started to look at this patch and realized
On 27/06/14 09:09, Tom Dunstan wrote:
On 27 June 2014 06:14, Gavin Flower gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz
mailto:gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz wrote:
On 27/06/14 00:12, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
INSERT INTO dept VALUES (10,'ACCOUNTING','NEW YORK') returning primary
key, dname;
On 06/27/2014 02:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com writes:
This latest patch is ready for a committer to look at now. The weird
comments have been changed, superfluous regression tests removed, and
nothing done about expression pushdown per (brief) discussion.
I
Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com writes:
On 06/27/2014 02:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
In exactly the same way, it isn't safe to push down quals into
subqueries that use DISTINCT unless the quals are non-volatile. This
consideration is missed by the current code, and I think that's a bug.
Given
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Why wouldn't it go back all the way to 9.0? (assuming 8.4 is dead)
People get unhappy when minor releases de-optimize queries that had
been working for them. It's not too late to change the behavior of
9.4, but I'm hesitant to do it in
Hello, I have finished the patches for all of 9.x.
I dont' touch what '-n' option shows and rewrite documents for
the option a bit. And '-n' won't show the changes of backup
location.
-8.4: does not have backup locations in ControlFileData.
9.0-9.1: resetxlog_backuploc_9_0-9.1.patch: Add
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Christoph Berg c...@df7cb.de wrote:
Re: Amit Kapila 2014-06-26 CAA4eK1+mUTjc=GXJK3bYtSwV2BmBni=
phevbqlqkhduv9cw...@mail.gmail.com
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Christoph Berg c...@df7cb.de wrote:
Re: Amit Kapila 2014-06-25
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com wrote:
On 06/26/2014 05:07 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I think it will make sense if we support RESET ALL as well similar
to Alter Database .. RESET ALL syntax. Do you see any reason
why we shouldn't support RESET ALL syntax
Hi,
As part of a research project, I'm trying to change Read Committed
isolation to use HeapTupleSatisfiesNow rather than acquiring a new
snapshot at every command [1]. Things appear to have gone reasonably
well so far, except certain queries fail with ERROR: non-MVCC
snapshots are not
Ryan Johnson wrote:
As part of a research project, I'm trying to change Read Committed
isolation to use HeapTupleSatisfiesNow rather than acquiring a new
snapshot at every command [1].
Are you aware of this?
commit 813fb0315587d32e3b77af1051a0ef517d187763
Author: Robert Haas
On 26/06/2014 11:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Ryan Johnson wrote:
As part of a research project, I'm trying to change Read Committed
isolation to use HeapTupleSatisfiesNow rather than acquiring a new
snapshot at every command [1].
Are you aware of this?
commit
90 matches
Mail list logo
