[HACKERS] [PATCH] Addition of some trivial auto vacuum logging

2011-09-27 Thread Royce Ausburn
Hi all, I spent a bit of today diagnosing a problem where long held transactions were preventing auto vacuum from doing its job. Eventually I had set log_autovacuum_min_duration to 0 to see what was going on. Unfortunately it wasn't until I tried a VACUUM VERBOSE that I found there were dead

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Addition of some trivial auto vacuum logging

2011-09-27 Thread Royce Ausburn
if this feature isn't really worthwhile. Tom's suggestion looks like it's less trivial that I can do just yet, but I'll take a look and ask for help if I need it. Cheers! --Royce On 28/09/2011, at 4:42 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: Royce Ausburn royce...@inomial.com wrote: As this is my

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring (was: Addition of some trivial auto vacuum logging)

2011-10-03 Thread Royce Ausburn
On 28/09/2011, at 11:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: Excerpts from Royce Ausburn's message of mar sep 27 21:28:26 -0300 2011: Tom's suggestion looks like it's less trivial that I can do just yet, but I'll take a look and ask for help if I need it.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring (was: Addition of some trivial auto vacuum logging)

2011-10-04 Thread Royce Ausburn
On 04/10/2011, at 11:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Royce Ausburn royce...@inomial.com wrote: - I'm not sure if I'm supposed to update CATALOG_VERSION_NO in catalog.h. In this patch I have. Generally that is left to the committer, as the correct value depends

[HACKERS] [REVIEW] Patch for cursor calling with named parameters

2011-10-06 Thread Royce Ausburn
Initial Review for patch: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-09/msg00744.php Submission review The patch is in context diff format and applies cleanly to the git master. The patch includes an update to regression tests. The regression tests pass. The patch does not include

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] Patch for cursor calling with named parameters

2011-10-06 Thread Royce Ausburn
Forgive my ignorance -- do I need to be doing anything else now seeing as I started the review? On 07/10/2011, at 7:15 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: 2011/10/6 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com: On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: David E. Wheeler

[HACKERS] Index only scan paving the way for auto clustered tables?

2011-10-11 Thread Royce Ausburn
Hi all, I wonder, could the recent work on index only scans pave the way for auto clustered tables? Consider a wide, mostly insert table with some subset of columns that I'd like to cluster on. I'm after locality of tuples that are very frequently fetched together, but not keen on the

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] Patch for cursor calling with named parameters

2011-10-11 Thread Royce Ausburn
On 08/10/2011, at 1:56 AM, Yeb Havinga wrote: Attach is v2 of the patch. Mixed notation now raises an error. In contrast with what I said above, named parameter related errors are thrown before any syntax errors. I tested with raising syntax errors first but the resulting code was a

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] Patch for cursor calling with named parameters

2011-10-11 Thread Royce Ausburn
On 11/10/2011, at 11:38 PM, Yeb Havinga wrote: Declaration of cursors with named parameters is already part of PostgreSQL (so it is possible to use the parameter names in the cursor query instead of $1, $2, etc.) and it also already documented with an example, just a few lines above the

Re: [HACKERS] BUG or strange behaviour of update on primary key

2011-10-17 Thread Royce Ausburn
On 18/10/2011, at 1:00 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:30 PM, desmodemone desmodem...@gmail.com wrote: Seems an Oracle bug not Postgresql one! I don't think it's a bug for it to work. It'd probably work in PostgreSQL too, if you inserted (2) first and then (1). It's just

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring

2011-11-15 Thread Royce Ausburn
On 16/11/2011, at 2:05 AM, Yeb Havinga wrote: On 2011-10-05 00:45, Royce Ausburn wrote: Attached is v2 of my patch that doesn't update CATALOG_VERSION_NO. I've also fixed the name of an argument to pgstat_report_vacuum which I don't think was particularly good, and I've replace the word

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring

2011-11-15 Thread Royce Ausburn
On 16/11/2011, at 8:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote: Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar nov 15 12:16:54 -0300 2011: I guess this is a dumb question, but why don't we

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring

2011-11-15 Thread Royce Ausburn
Personally I think some log output, done better, would have been more useful for me at the time. At the time I was trying to diagnose an ineffective vacuum and postgres' logs weren't giving me any hints about what was wrong. I turned to the mailing list and got immediate help, but I

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring

2011-11-15 Thread Royce Ausburn
On 16/11/2011, at 12:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Royce Ausburn royce...@inomial.com wrote: Personally I think some log output, done better, would have been more useful for me at the time. At the time I was trying to diagnose an ineffective vacuum

[HACKERS] [Review] Include detailed information about a row failing a CHECK constraint into the error message

2011-11-16 Thread Royce Ausburn
The patch applies cleanly to the current git master and is in context diff format.The patch fails the regression tests because it is outputting new DETAIL line which four of tests aren't expecting. The tests will need to be updated.Functionality:The patch works as advertised. An insert or update

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring

2011-11-17 Thread Royce Ausburn
On 17/11/2011, at 1:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: Not sure about the log line, but allowing pgstattuple to distinguish between recently-dead and quite-thoroughly-dead seems useful.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring

2011-11-17 Thread Royce Ausburn
On 18/11/2011, at 10:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Royce Ausburn royce...@inomial.com wrote: Thanks for the discussion so far all. Would it be worthwhile to make another patch that addresses the points from Yeb's reviews? It's not sounding like