On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:42 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen a...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
At 2015-01-20 20:36:39 -0500, robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Neither C
functions nor all-or-nothing are going to be of any practical use.
Do you see some
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I'm tweaking your v24 a bit more now, thanks -- main change is to make
vacuum_one_database be called only to run one analyze stage, so it never
iterates for each stage; callers must iterate calling it multiple times
in those cases. (There's only one callsite that needs
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
You'll probably prefer the attached. This patch works by disabling
abbreviation, but only after writing out runs, with the final merge
left to go. That way, it doesn't matter when abbreviated keys are not
read back from
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
That having been said, it's clearer to continue to handle each case (C
locale vs other locales) separately within the new
bttext_abbrev_convert() function, just to be consistent, but also to
avoid NUL-terminating the text
Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-12-31 18:35:38 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
+ PQsetnonblocking(connSlot[0].connection, 1);
+
+ for (i = 1; i concurrentCons; i++)
+ {
+ connSlot[i].connection = connectDatabase(dbname, host, port,
username,
+
On 1/22/15 7:54 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 01:19:33AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
Or do you - as the text edited in your patch, but not the quote above -
mean to run pg_upgrade just on the primary and then rsync?
No, I was
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
I'm still nervous about overloading this onto the roles system; I think it
will end up being very easy to accidentally break. But if others think it'll
work then I guess I'm just being paranoid.
I agree with you. I
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
I'm still nervous about overloading this onto the roles system; I think it
will end up being very easy to accidentally break. But if others think it'll
work then I guess
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:18 AM, David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 January 2015 at 17:10, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
With your patch applied, the failure with MSVC disappeared, but
On 1/21/15 6:50 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
I'm still nervous about overloading this onto the roles system; I think it will
end up being very easy to accidentally break. But if others think it'll work
then I guess I'm just being paranoid.
Break in which way..? If you're saying it'll be easy for
* Jim Nasby (jim.na...@bluetreble.com) wrote:
On 1/21/15 6:50 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
I'm still nervous about overloading this onto the roles system; I think it
will end up being very easy to accidentally break. But if others think
it'll work then I guess I'm just being paranoid.
Break in
On 01/23/2015 10:44 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
number of workers especially at slightly higher worker count.
Those fixed chunk numbers look pretty screwy. 2, 4 and 8 workers make no
difference, then suddenly 16 cuts times by 1/2 to 1/3? Then 32 cuts time
by another 1/2 to 1/3?
cached? First couple
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 2015-01-23 13:52:54 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
That wouldn't actually help with what Bruce is trying to do, which
is to duplicate the results of the pg_upgrade from the master over to
the standby.
Well, it'd pretty much obliviate the
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 2015-01-23 14:27:51 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 2015-01-23 14:05:10 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
If I follow what you're suggesting, pg_upgrade would
need a new 'in-place' mode that
* Jim Nasby (jim.na...@bluetreble.com) wrote:
On 1/22/15 7:54 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 01:19:33AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
Or do you - as the text edited in your patch, but not the quote above -
mean to run pg_upgrade just
On 2015-01-22 20:54:47 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 01:19:33AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
Or do you - as the text edited in your patch, but not the quote above -
mean to run pg_upgrade just on the primary and then rsync?
On 2015-01-23 13:52:54 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 2015-01-22 20:54:47 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 01:19:33AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
Or do you - as the text
On 2015-01-23 14:05:10 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 2015-01-23 13:52:54 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
That wouldn't actually help with what Bruce is trying to do, which
is to duplicate the results of the pg_upgrade from the master over to
AFAICS there are no provisions to ever build this file, on any platform,
and have not been since 8.0.
If we did build it, it would likely fail on a large subset of platforms,
because it refers to a constant SYS_NMLN that isn't too portable.
I propose we just remove it.
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 2015-01-22 20:54:47 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 01:19:33AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
Or do you - as the text edited in your patch, but not the quote above -
mean to
On 2015-01-23 12:52:03 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 1/22/15 3:18 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
, but to then put it's entire contents into WAL? Blech.
Besides actually having a chance of being correct, doing so will save
having to do two checkpoints inside movedb(). I think it's pretty likely
that
Why is the last; still there? AFAICS it matters in the old coding
because of the while, but I don't think there is an equivalent looping
construct in the new code.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
On 01/23/2015 03:00 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Why is the last; still there? AFAICS it matters in the old coding
because of the while, but I don't think there is an equivalent looping
construct in the new code.
You're right, I missed that. It shouldn't be there, and will produce an
error
On 1/23/15 9:10 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-01-22 22:58:17 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-01-22 16:38:49 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
I'm trying to figure out why you'd do '2' in master when in discussion
of '1' you say I also don't think ALTER DATABASE is even intentionally
run at
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 2015-01-23 14:05:10 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 2015-01-23 13:52:54 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
That wouldn't actually help with what Bruce is trying to do, which
is to duplicate the
On 1/23/15 12:16 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
Just to clarify- this concept isn't actually mine but was suggested by a
pretty sizable PG user who has a great deal of familiarity with other
databases. I don't mean to try and invoke the 'silent majority' but
rather to make sure folks don't think this
On 1/23/15 5:42 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
*Fixed-Chunks*
*No. of workers/Time (ms)*
*0* *2* *4* *8* *16**24**32*
Run-1 250536 266279 251263 234347 87930 50474 35474
Run-2 249587 230628 225648 193340 83036 35140 9100
Run-3 234963 220671
On 1/22/15 3:18 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
, but to then put it's entire contents into WAL? Blech.
Besides actually having a chance of being correct, doing so will save
having to do two checkpoints inside movedb(). I think it's pretty likely
that that actually saves overall IO, even including the
On 2015-01-23 13:01:34 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 1/23/15 9:10 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-01-22 22:58:17 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-01-22 16:38:49 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
I'm trying to figure out why you'd do '2' in master when in discussion
of '1' you say I also don't
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
So far, the 'nasty' damage seems to generally if not always follow a
checksum failure and the checksum failures are always numerically
adjacent. For example:
[cds2 12707 2015-01-22 12:51:11.032 CST 2754]WARNING:
On 2015-01-23 14:27:51 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 2015-01-23 14:05:10 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
If I follow what you're suggesting, pg_upgrade would
need a new 'in-place' mode that removes all of the catalog tables from
the old
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
Attached patch fixes minor issues in code comments that relate to
abbreviated keys.
There should also be a description of hyperLogLog in the new README
file within ./src/backend/lib/
I suggest:
hyperloglog.c - a streaming
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
Attached patch fixes minor issues in code comments that relate to
abbreviated keys.
There should also be a description of hyperLogLog in the new
* Jim Nasby (jim.na...@bluetreble.com) wrote:
On 1/23/15 12:16 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
Just to clarify- this concept isn't actually mine but was suggested by a
pretty sizable PG user who has a great deal of familiarity with other
databases. I don't mean to try and invoke the 'silent
Am 23.01.2015 um 09:17 schrieb Abhijit Menon-Sen:
At 2014-06-03 22:30:50 -0400, pete...@gmx.net wrote:
I'm not sure whether the following coding actually detects any errors:
Solution.pm:
open(P, cl /? 21 |) || die cl command not found;
Since nobody with a Windows system has commented,
Here's v0.5. (Why did you use that weird decimal versioning scheme? You
could just say v4 and save a couple of keystrokes). This patch makes
perfect sense to me now. I was ready to commit, but I checked the
regression test you added and noticed that you're only reading results
for the last set
[pruning the Cc: list and starting a new thread]
Here's the cleaned-up version of the patch to allow abbreviated keys
when sorting a single Datum. This also removes comments that suggest
that the caller of tuplesort_begin_datum should ever have to care
about the abbreviated key optimization.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
Quick update: not done yet, but I'm making consistent progress, with
several false starts. (for example, I had a .conf problem with the
new dynamic shared memory setting and git merrily bisected down to the
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 02:34:36PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
Why? Just rsync the new data directory onto the old directory on the
standbys. That's fine and simple.
That still doesn't address the need to use --size-only, it would just
mean that you don't need to use -H. If anything the
There are at least two bugs in reorderbuffer.c's ReorderBufferCommit():
1. Although iterstate is modified within the PG_TRY segment and
referenced within the PG_CATCH segment, it is not marked volatile.
This means that its value upon reaching the PG_CATCH segment is
indeterminate. In practice,
At 2014-06-03 22:30:50 -0400, pete...@gmx.net wrote:
I'm not sure whether the following coding actually detects any errors:
Solution.pm:
open(P, cl /? 21 |) || die cl command not found;
Since nobody with a Windows system has commented, I'm just writing to
say that from a Perl
At 2014-12-24 08:10:46 -0500, pete...@gmx.net wrote:
As a demo for how this might look, attached is a wildly incomplete
patch to produce GNU long-link headers.
Hi Peter.
In what way exactly is this patch wildly incomplete? (I ask because it's
been added to the current CF).
-- Abhijit
--
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
1. Scanning block-by-block has negative impact on performance and
I thin it will degrade more if we increase parallel count as that can
lead
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
On 01/23/2015 10:44 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
number of workers especially at slightly higher worker count.
Those fixed chunk numbers look pretty screwy. 2, 4 and 8 workers make no
difference, then suddenly 16 cuts
On 22 January 2015 23:16, Alvaro Herrera Wrote,
Here's v23.
There are two things that continue to bother me and I would like you,
dear patch author, to change them before committing this patch:
1. I don't like having vacuum_one_database() and a separate
vacuum_one_database_parallel(). I
Alvaro,
Thanks for the review.
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
Note the first comment in this hunk was not update to talk about NULL
instead of :
Ah, good catch, will fix.
Hm, this is a bit odd. I thought you were going to return the subset of
columns that the user had
On 01/23/2015 03:17 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
At 2014-06-03 22:30:50 -0400, pete...@gmx.net wrote:
I'm not sure whether the following coding actually detects any errors:
Solution.pm:
open(P, cl /? 21 |) || die cl command not found;
Since nobody with a Windows system has commented,
Stephen Frost wrote:
+#define GetModifiedColumns(relinfo, estate) \
+ (rt_fetch((relinfo)-ri_RangeTableIndex,
(estate)-es_range_table)-modifiedCols)
I assume you are aware that this GetModifiedColumns() macro is a
duplicate of another one found elsewhere. However I think this is
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
Would this view have a row for every option in a config file? IE: if you set
something in both postgresql.conf and postgresql.auto.conf, would it show up
twice? I think it should, and that there should be a way to see
On 2015-01-22 22:58:17 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-01-22 16:38:49 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
I'm trying to figure out why you'd do '2' in master when in discussion
of '1' you say I also don't think ALTER DATABASE is even intentionally
run at the time of a base backup. I agree with
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
+#define GetModifiedColumns(relinfo, estate) \
+ (rt_fetch((relinfo)-ri_RangeTableIndex,
(estate)-es_range_table)-modifiedCols)
I assume you are aware that this GetModifiedColumns() macro is a
Note the first comment in this hunk was not update to talk about NULL
instead of :
@@ -163,13 +168,63 @@ BuildIndexValueDescription(Relation indexRelation,
Datum *values, bool *isnull)
{
StringInfoData buf;
+ Form_pg_index idxrec;
Dilip kumar wrote:
Changes:
1. In current patch vacuum_one_database (for table list), have the table loop
outside and analyze_stage loop inside, so it will finish
All three stage for one table first and then pick the next table. But
vacuum_one_database_parallel will do the stage loop
53 matches
Mail list logo
