Sorry, I missed this message and only cought up when reading your CF
status mail. I've attached three patches:
Could let me know how to get the CF status mail?
I think he meant this email I sent last weekend:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/542672d2.3060...@vmware.com
I see,
Here is the comments in process_matched_tle() in rewriteHandler.c.
883 * such nodes; consider
884 * UPDATE tab SET col.fld1.subfld1 = x, col.fld2.subfld2 = y
885 * The two expressions produced by the parser will look like
886 * FieldStore(col, fld1,
On 10/02/2014 02:52 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Having been surprisingly successful at advancing our understanding of
arguments for and against various approaches to value locking, I
decided to try the same thing out elsewhere. I have created a
general-purpose UPSERT wiki page.
The page is:
On 10/02/2014 03:20 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
My only concern from the benchmarks is that it seemed like there
was a statistically significant increase in planning time:
unpatched plan time average: 0.450 ms
patched plan time average: 0.536 ms
That *might* just be noise, but it seems likely
Dne 2 Říjen 2014, 2:20, Kevin Grittner napsal(a):
Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
On 12.9.2014 23:22, Robert Haas wrote:
My first thought is to revert to NTUP_PER_BUCKET=1, but it's
certainly arguable. Either method, though, figures to be better than
doing nothing, so let's do something.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Could you write down all of the discussed syntaxes, using a similar notation
we use in the manual, with examples on how to use them? And some examples on
what is possible with some syntaxes, and not with others?
Hello,
I propose the attached patch. It adds a new flag ImmediateDieOK, which is a
weaker form of ImmediateInterruptOK that only allows handling a pending
die-signal in the signal handler.
Robert, others, do you see a problem with this?
Per se I don't have a problem with it. There
On 09/23/2014 09:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
I've previously started two threads about replication identifiers. Check
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20131114172632.GE7522%40alap2.anarazel.de
and
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20131211153833.GB25227%40awork2.anarazel.de
.
On 2014-10-02 17:47:39 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Hello,
I propose the attached patch. It adds a new flag ImmediateDieOK, which is
a
weaker form of ImmediateInterruptOK that only allows handling a pending
die-signal in the signal handler.
Robert, others, do you see a
On 2014-10-02 11:49:31 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 09/23/2014 09:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
I've previously started two threads about replication identifiers. Check
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20131114172632.GE7522%40alap2.anarazel.de
and
On 2014-10-01 18:19:05 +0200, Ilya Kosmodemiansky wrote:
I have a patch which is actually not commitfest-ready now, but it
always better to start discussing proof of concept having some patch
instead of just an idea.
That's a good way to start work on a topic like this.
From an Oracle DBA's
Hi,
But this is imo prohibitive. Yes, we're doing it for a long while. But
no, that's not ok. It actually prompoted me into prototyping the latch
thing (in some other thread). I don't think existing practice justifies
expanding it further.
I see, in that case, this approach seems
On 09/15/2014 08:46 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
I'm not sure I like the idea of printing a percentage. It might be
unclear what the denominator was if somebody feels the urge to work
back to the actual number of skipped transactions. I mean, I guess
it's probably just the value you passed to
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Not just from a oracle DBA POV ;). Generally.
sure
Saying that, principally they mean an
Oracle Wait Interface analogue. The Basic idea is to have counters or
sensors all around database kernel to measure what a
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 5:25 AM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
It's not at all clear to me that a DTrace-like (or perf-based, rather)
approach is unsafe, slow, or unsuitable for production use.
With appropriate wrapper tools I think we could have quite a useful
library of
Hi
There are few less readable examples of dynamic SQL in plpgsql doc
like:
EXECUTE 'SELECT count(*) FROM '
|| tabname::regclass
|| ' WHERE inserted_by = $1 AND inserted = $2'
INTO c
USING checked_user, checked_date;
or
EXECUTE 'UPDATE tbl SET '
|| quote_ident(colname)
On 10/2/14 1:47 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I looked at this briefly, and was surprised that there is no support for
signing a message without encrypting it. Is that intentional? Instead of
adding a function to encrypt and sign a message, I would have expected
this to just add a new function
* Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
The patch https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=885
(discussion starts here I hope -
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4fe8ca2c.3030...@uptime.jp)
demonstrates performance problems; LWLOCK_STAT, LOCK_DEBUG and
DTrace-like
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
1. I've decided to put pg_stat_lwlock into extension pg_stat_lwlock
(simply for test purposes). Is it OK, or better to implement it
somewhere inside pg_catalog or in another extension (for example
pg_stat_statements)?
I personally am
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:49 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
An origin column in the table itself helps tremendously to debug issues with
the replication system. In many if not most scenarios, I think you'd want to
have that extra column, even if it's not strictly required.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Perhaps I'm just being a bit over the top, but all this per-character
work feels a bit ridiculous..
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Was just thinking that we might be able to work out what needs to be
done without having to actually do it on a per-character basis. That
said, I'm not sure it's
Hi,
we have seen repeatedly that users can be confused about why PostgreSQL
is not shutting down even though they requested it. Usually, this is
because `log_checkpoints' is not enabled and the final checkpoint is
being written, delaying shutdown. As no message besides shutting down
is written
On 9/29/14, 1:08 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-09-28 20:32:30 -0400, Gregory Smith wrote:
There are already a wide range of human readable time interval output
formats available in the database; see the list at
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
So in essence what we're going to do is that the balance mechanism
considers only tables that don't have per-table configuration options;
for those that do, we will use the values configured
I got the following error when I try to build my extension
towards the latest master branch.
Is the port/atomics/*.h files forgotten on make install?
[kaigai@magro pg_strom]$ make
gcc -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith
-Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels
On 2014-09-26 10:28:21 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Oskari Saarenmaa o...@ohmu.fi wrote:
So you think a read barrier is the same thing as an acquire barrier
and a write barrier is the same as a release barrier? That would be
surprising. It's certainly not
On 2014-09-25 10:42:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-09-25 10:22:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
That leads me to wonder: Have
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
OK.
Given that the results look good, do you plan to push this?
By this, you mean the increase in the number of buffer mapping
partitions to 128, and a corresponding increase in MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS?
If so, and if you
On 2014-10-02 10:40:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
OK.
Given that the results look good, do you plan to push this?
By this, you mean the increase in the number of buffer mapping
partitions to 128, and a
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
It's actually more complex than that :(
Simple things first:
Oracle's definition seems pretty iron clad:
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E18659_01/html/821-1383/gjzmf.html
__machine_acq_barrier is a clear superset of
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-10-02 10:40:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
OK.
Given that the results look good, do you plan to push this?
By this, you mean
Hi,
On 2014-10-02 23:33:36 +0900, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
I got the following error when I try to build my extension
towards the latest master branch.
Is the port/atomics/*.h files forgotten on make install?
You're right.
The attached patch is probably right remedy.
I've changed the order to
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
So in essence what we're going to do is that the balance mechanism
considers only tables that don't have per-table configuration options;
for
Michael Banck-2 wrote
Hi,
we have seen repeatedly that users can be confused about why PostgreSQL
is not shutting down even though they requested it. Usually, this is
because `log_checkpoints' is not enabled and the final checkpoint is
being written, delaying shutdown. As no message
On 2014-10-02 10:55:06 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
It's actually more complex than that :(
Simple things first:
Oracle's definition seems pretty iron clad:
On 2014-10-02 10:56:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-10-02 10:40:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
OK.
Given that the results
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
So let's use those, then.
Right, I've never contended that.
OK, cool.
A fully barrier on x86 should be an mfence, right?
Right. I've not talked about changing full barrier semantics. What I was
referring to is
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
I agree with both of those arguments. I have run into very few
customers who have used the autovacuum settings to customize behavior
for particular tables, and anyone who hasn't should see no change
(right?), so my guess
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 02.10.2014, 08:17 -0700 schrieb David G Johnston:
Michael Banck-2 wrote
I've attached a trivial patch for this, should it be added to the next
commitfest?
Peeking at this provokes a couple of novice questions:
While apparently it is impossible to have a
Hi fellow hackers,
I would like to work on a new feature allowing our users to assess the
amount of trouble they will run into when running a DDL script on their
production setups, *before* actually getting their services down.
The main practical example I can offer here is the ALTER TABLE
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr
wrote:
Hi fellow hackers,
I would like to work on a new feature allowing our users to assess the
amount of trouble they will run into when running a DDL script on their
production setups, *before* actually getting their
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr
wrote:
Hi fellow hackers,
I would like to work on a new feature allowing our users to assess the
amount of trouble they will run
I think the main issue is when a table rewrite is triggered on a DDL
command on a large table, as this is what frequently leads to
unavailability. The idea of introducing a NOREWRITE keyword to DDL
commands then came up (credit: Peter Geoghegan). When the NOREWRITE
keyword is used and the DDL
On 10/02/2014 05:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
OK.
Given that the results look good, do you plan to push this?
By this, you mean the increase in the number of buffer mapping
partitions to 128, and a corresponding
On 2014-10-02 20:04:58 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 10/02/2014 05:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
OK.
Given that the results look good, do you plan to push this?
By this, you mean the increase in the number of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/02/2014 11:30 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Questions:
1. Do you agree that a systematic way to report what a DDL command
(or script, or transaction) is going to do on your production
database is a feature we should provide to our growing
On 2014-10-02 11:35:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Which is why these acquire/release fences, in contrast to
acquire/release operations, have more guarantees... You put your finger
right onto the spot.
But,
On 10/02/2014 09:30 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Questions:
1. Do you agree that a systematic way to report what a DDL command (or
script, or transaction) is going to do on your production database
is a feature we should provide to our growing user base?
I would say it is late to
make check-world dies ingloriously for me, like this:
/bin/sh ../../../config/install-sh -c -d tmp_check/log
make -C ../../..
DESTDIR='/Users/rhaas/pgsql/src/bin/initdb'/tmp_check/install install
'/Users/rhaas/pgsql/src/bin/initdb'/tmp_check/log/install.log 21
cd .
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Do a make check-world and it'll hopefully fail ;). Check
pg_buffercache_pages.c.
Yep. Committed, with an update to the comments in lwlock.c to allude
to the pg_buffercache issue.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Frankly, I suggest dropping simple entirely and using only the
parse/bind/describe/execute flow in the v3 protocol.
The last time I checked, that was significantly slower.
* Dimitri Fontaine (dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr) wrote:
1. Do you agree that a systematic way to report what a DDL command (or
script, or transaction) is going to do on your production database
is a feature we should provide to our growing user base?
I definitely like the idea of such a
* Harold Giménez (har...@heroku.com) wrote:
I think the main issue is when a table rewrite is triggered on a DDL
command on a large table, as this is what frequently leads to
unavailability. The idea of introducing a NOREWRITE keyword to DDL
commands then came up (credit: Peter Geoghegan).
* Joshua D. Drake (j...@commandprompt.com) wrote:
2. What do you think such a feature should look like?
I liked the other post that said: EXPLAIN ALTER TABLE or whatever.
Heck it could even be useful to have EXPLAIN ANALZYE ALTER TABLE
in case people want to run it on staging/test/dev
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
SQL:2003 introduced the function NEXT VALUE FOR sequence. Google
tells me that at least DB2, SQL Server and a few niche databases
understand it so far. As far as I can tell there is no standardised
equivalent of
Questions:
1. Do you agree that a systematic way to report what a DDL command (or
script, or transaction) is going to do on your production database
is a feature we should provide to our growing user base?
Yes.
2. What do you think such a feature should look like?
As with
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
I've started off by adding varied examples of the use of the existing
proposed syntax. I'll expand on this soon.
I spent some time today expanding on the details, and commenting on
the issues around the custom syntax
On 10/02/2014 06:30 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Hi fellow hackers,
[snip]
Questions:
1. Do you agree that a systematic way to report what a DDL command (or
script, or transaction) is going to do on your production database
is a feature we should provide to our growing user base?
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 02:57:43PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
I don't know that that is the *expectation*. However, I personally
would find it *acceptable* if it meant that we could get efficient merge
semantics on other aspects of the syntax, since my primary use for MERGE
is bulk loading.
EXPLAIN ALTER TABLE ?
Good thing: People recognize it.
Bad thing: People might not be able to tell the difference between
a DDL and DML result.
What about EXPLAIN DDL ...?
The extra keyword (DDL) makes it a bit more explicit that the
results are not comparable to the standard
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 12:00:48 +0200
Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to wrote:
create a new language.
There are enough problems with SQL in general, enough alternatives
proposed over time that it might be worth coming up with something
that Just Works.
--
Steven Lembark
Python2 - Python3 would've been a lot less painful if you could mark,
on a module-by-module basis, whether a module was python2 or python3
code. It wasn't very practical for Python because python code can reach
deep into the guts of unrelated objects discovered at runtime - it can
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Joshua D. Drake (j...@commandprompt.com) wrote:
2. What do you think such a feature should look like?
I liked the other post that said: EXPLAIN ALTER TABLE or whatever.
Heck it could even be useful to have EXPLAIN
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
The downside of the 'explain' approach is that the script then has to be
modified to put 'explain' in front of everything and then you have to go
through each statement and consider it. Having a 'dry-run' transaction
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
And yet, in theory session 2's impact
on production should not be minimal, if we consider something like
EXPLAIN output.
Should have been minimal, I mean.
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
Session 3 is an innocent bystander. It goes to query the same table in
an ordinary, routine way - a SELECT statement. Even though session 2's
lock is not granted yet, session 3 is not at liberty to skip the queue
and get
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
Granted, it's something that's not easily automatable, whereas a nowait is.
However, rather than nowait, I'd prefer cancellable semantics, that
would cancel voluntarily if any other transaction requests a
conflicting lock,
* Claudio Freire (klaussfre...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
The downside of the 'explain' approach is that the script then has to be
modified to put 'explain' in front of everything and then you have to go
through each statement
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Claudio Freire klaussfre...@gmail.com wrote:
The explain would show the AccessExclusiveLock, so it would be enough
for a heads-up to kill all idle-in-transaction holding locks on the
target relation (if killable, or just wait).
I think that there are very few
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Claudio Freire (klaussfre...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
The downside of the 'explain' approach is that the script then has to be
modified to put 'explain'
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I think if we use the MERGE command for this feature we would need to
use a non-standard keyword to specify that we want OLTP/UPSERT
functionality. That would allow us to mostly use the MERGE standard
syntax without having
On 10/2/14 3:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
1..2
ok 1 - initdb with invalid option nonzero exit code
ok 2 - initdb with invalid option prints error message
# Looks like your test exited with 256 just after 2.
not ok 3 - initdb options handling
# Failed test 'initdb options
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Claudio Freire klaussfre...@gmail.com wrote:
I've done that manually (throw the DDL, and cancel if it takes more
than a couple of seconds) on modest but relatively busy servers with
quite some success.
Fair enough, but that isn't the same as NOWAIT. It's
On 2014-10-02 17:09:43 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 10/2/14 3:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
1..2
ok 1 - initdb with invalid option nonzero exit code
ok 2 - initdb with invalid option prints error message
# Looks like your test exited with 256 just after 2.
not ok 3 -
* Peter Geoghegan (p...@heroku.com) wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
The downside of the 'explain' approach is that the script then has to be
modified to put 'explain' in front of everything and then you have to go
through each statement and
On 2014-10-02 17:03:59 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Claudio Freire (klaussfre...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
The downside of the 'explain' approach is that the script then has to be
modified to put 'explain' in front of
On 2014-10-02 13:49:36 -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
EXPLAIN ALTER TABLE ?
I don't think that'll work - there's already EXPLAIN for some CREATE. At
least CREATE TABLE ... AS, CREATE VIEW ... AS and SELECT INTO.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund
* Claudio Freire (klaussfre...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
That sounds extremely complex. You'd have to implement the fake
columns, foreign keys, indexes, etc on most execution nodes, the
planner, and even system views.
Eh?
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 2014-10-02 17:03:59 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
That sounds extremely complex. You'd have to implement the fake
columns, foreign keys, indexes, etc on most execution nodes, the
planner, and even system views.
Eh? We have MVCC
On 18 September 2014 07:32, Pavan Deolasee pavan.deola...@gmail.com wrote:
564 /*
565 * Set state to complete; see SyncRepWaitForLSN() for discussion
of
566 * the various states.
567 */
568 thisproc-syncRepState = SYNC_REP_WAIT_COMPLETE;
569
570
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 02:08:30PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I think if we use the MERGE command for this feature we would need to
use a non-standard keyword to specify that we want OLTP/UPSERT
functionality. That
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Claudio Freire (klaussfre...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
That sounds extremely complex. You'd have to implement the fake
columns, foreign keys, indexes, etc
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
- will the table have to be rewritten? the indexes?
Please give my DDL deparsing patch a look. There is a portion there
about deparsing ALTER TABLE specifically; what it does is save a list of
subcommands, and for each of them we either
On 10/02/2014 01:15 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/02/2014 11:30 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Questions:
1. Do you agree that a systematic way to report what a DDL command
(or script, or transaction) is going to do on your production
database is a
John Cochran j69coch...@gmail.com writes:
As it is, I've finished checking the differences between the postgres and
IANA code for zic.c after editing both to eliminate non-functional style
differences such as indentation, function prototypes, comparing strchr
results against NULL or 0, etc. It
On 3 October 2014 00:01, Thomas Munro mu...@ip9.org wrote:
On 2 October 2014 14:48, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Thomas Munro mu...@ip9.org writes:
SQL:2003 introduced the function NEXT VALUE FOR sequence. Google
tells me that at least DB2, SQL Server and a few niche databases
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
So, what's the correct/best grammar?
CREATE [ IF NOT EXISTS ] [ UNIQUE ] INDEX index_name
or
CREATE [ UNIQUE ] INDEX [ IF NOT EXISTS ] index_name
I've elected myself as the reviewer for this patch. Here are
Thomas Munro mu...@ip9.org writes:
On 2 October 2014 14:48, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Have you checked the archives about this? My recollection is that one
reason it's not in there (aside from having to reserve NEXT) is that
the standard-mandated semantics are not the same as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/02/2014 06:43 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
The real question is at what level of information, returned to the
user, does this feature become user friendly?
It is one thing to provide information of the kind of
TAKE ACCECSS EXCLUSIVE LOCK ON
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Greg Smith
greg.sm...@crunchydatasolutions.com wrote:
When 9.4 is already giving a more than 100% gain on this targeted test case,
I can't see that chasing after maybe an extra 10% is worth having yet
another GUC around. Especially when it will probably take
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Basically, if you are on 9.3.5 or earlier any per-table options for
autovacuum cost delay will misbehave (meaning: any such table will be
processed with settings flattened according to balancing of the standard
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 04/14/2014 10:31 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
The attached patch contains CINE for sequences.
I just strip this code from the patch rejected before.
Committed with minor changes
Hmm, the CommitFest
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Marti Raudsepp ma...@juffo.org wrote:
+ ereport(NOTICE,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_DUPLICATE_TABLE),
+ errmsg(relation \%s\ already exists, skipping,
+ indexRelationName)));
1. Clearly relation should be
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On 10/2/14 3:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
1..2
ok 1 - initdb with invalid option nonzero exit code
ok 2 - initdb with invalid option prints error message
# Looks like your test exited with 256 just after 2.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
I pushed the first part.
Thanks. Attached is a rebased version of patch 2, implementing the actual
feature. One thing I noticed with more testing is that if --create is used
and that the destination folder does not
This is from Bug #11555, which is still in moderation as I type this
(analysis was done via IRC).
The GiST insertion code appears to have no length checks at all on the
inserted entry. index_form_tuple checks for length = 8191, with the
default blocksize, but obviously a tuple less than 8191
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
make check-world dies ingloriously for me, like this:
FWIW, it works fine for me on my Mac laptop, using the Perl 5.16.2 that
comes standard with OSX 10.9.5. I did have to install IPC::Run from
CPAN though.
# Failed test 'initdb options handling'
#
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Marti Raudsepp ma...@juffo.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 04/14/2014 10:31 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
The attached patch contains CINE for sequences.
I just strip this code from the
On 10/2/14, 2:43 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Questions:
1. Do you agree that a systematic way to report what a DDL command (or
script, or transaction) is going to do on your production database
is a feature we should provide to our growing user base?
Yes.
+1
2. What do you think
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
