Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:54:25AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Dmitriy Igrishin escribió: > > > I've noticed a small inaccuracy: > > > > E.1.3.4 Object Manipulation > > [...] > > > > "This allows C functions to be called when DDL commands are run." > > > > But according to > > http://www.pos

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

Dmitriy Igrishin escribió: > I've noticed a small inaccuracy: > > E.1.3.4 Object Manipulation > [...] > > "This allows C functions to be called when DDL commands are run." > > But according to > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/event-triggers.html > not only C functions can be called

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

2013/4/21 Bruce Momjian > I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3 > beta1 on April 29, with a release on May 2. Those dates might change, > but that is the current plan. I have completed a draft 9.3 release > notes, which you can view here: > > http://momjian

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:22:59AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > Yes, that would be user-visible, though we rarely add details like > > that. > > What queries are faster, that users would understand? > > Example: > CREATE TABLE tbl_parent (c01 numeric, c02 int); > > CREATE

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Friday, May 17, 2013 4:22 AM Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 06:49:33PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > "'Bruce Momjian'" writes: > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 08:38:59PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > >> Reduce query processing overhead by avoiding insertion of useless > plan nodes >

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 06:49:33PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "'Bruce Momjian'" writes: > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 08:38:59PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> Reduce query processing overhead by avoiding insertion of useless plan > >> nodes > >> OR > >> Improve performance of certain kind of queries

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

"'Bruce Momjian'" writes: > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 08:38:59PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >> Reduce query processing overhead by avoiding insertion of useless plan nodes >> OR >> Improve performance of certain kind of queries by avoiding extra processing >> of doing projection >> >> This applies t

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 08:38:59PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > I usually mention items that have a user-visible change, or are easy to > > explain, or apply to most queries. I am not sure this falls into any > > of > > those categories. > > > > Can you suggest some release note text for this it

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:17 PM Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:23:48AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > 2. I am not able to figure out which item of release notes cover > the > > > below > > > > feature commit > > > > Avoid inserting Result nodes that only compute identity > p

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:23:48AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > 2. I am not able to figure out which item of release notes cover the > > below > > > feature commit > > > Avoid inserting Result nodes that only compute identity projections. > > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/E1UGCBh-0006P3

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Monday, May 06, 2013 8:17 PM Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 12:43:55PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:32 AM Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3 > > > beta1 on April 29, with a release on May 2.

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 06:59:28PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> I think this is equally important for restoration of dumps, if > >the restoration > >> is run all in one transaction. (Making the dump and restoring > >it have similar > >> locking and unlocking patterns) > >

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 02:16:59PM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 03:03:58PM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > > Some suggestions, perhaps just based on my preference for verbosity: > > > > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 12:43:55PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:32 AM Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3 > > beta1 on April 29, with a release on May 2. Those dates might change, > > but that is the current plan.

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:32 AM Bruce Momjian wrote: > I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3 > beta1 on April 29, with a release on May 2. Those dates might change, > but that is the current plan. I have completed a draft 9.3 release > notes, which you can view he

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On 05/05/2013 05:16 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Bruce Momjian > wrote: On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 03:03:58PM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > Some suggestions, perhaps just based on my preference for verbosity: > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 03:03:58PM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > > Some suggestions, perhaps just based on my preference for verbosity: > > > > > > > > Add cache of local locks (Jeff Janes) > > > > > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 03:03:58PM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > Some suggestions, perhaps just based on my preference for verbosity: > > > > Add cache of local locks (Jeff Janes) > > > > This speeds lock release at statement completion in transactions >

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 02:09:21PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > > > > > Add a Postgres foreign data wrapper contrib module (Shigeru > > Hanada, KaiGai Kohei) > > > > > > > > This foreign data wrapper allows writes; potentially other > >

[HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3 > beta1 on April 29, with a release on May 2. Those dates might change, > but that is the current plan. I have completed a draft 9.3 release > notes, which you can view here

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

> > > Add a Postgres foreign data wrapper contrib module (Shigeru > Hanada, KaiGai Kohei) > > > > This foreign data wrapper allows writes; potentially other > foreign data wrappers can now support writes. > > > > Are

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 05:29:51PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Bruce, > > So here's my draft list of "Major Enhancements" for the relase notes: > > * Writeable Foreign Tables > * pgsql_fdw driver for federation of PostgreSQL databases > * Automatically updatable VIEWs > * MATERIALIZED VIEW declar

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

Bruce, So here's my draft list of "Major Enhancements" for the relase notes: * Writeable Foreign Tables * pgsql_fdw driver for federation of PostgreSQL databases * Automatically updatable VIEWs * MATERIALIZED VIEW declaration * LATERAL JOINs * Additional JSON constructor and extractor functions *

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On 25.04.2013 12:43, Vik Fearing wrote: On 04/24/2013 06:34 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Let me clarify --- changes to our WAL binary format and source code changes are not really incompatibilities from a user perspective as we never promise to do our best to minimize such changes --- m eaning

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On 04/24/2013 06:34 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Let me clarify --- changes to our WAL binary format and source code changes are not really incompatibilities from a user perspective as we never promise to do our best to minimize such changes --- m eaning the fact the WAL

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On 24.04.2013 06:22, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 06:56:34PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 05:04:15PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Do we usually repeat the changes listed in the backwards compatibility section later, in the "Changes" s

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 06:56:34PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 05:04:15PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > Do we usually repeat the changes listed in the backwards > > > > compatibility section later, in the "Changes" section? If not, then > >

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 05:04:15PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Do we usually repeat the changes listed in the backwards > > > compatibility section later, in the "Changes" section? If not, then > > > instead of the first two items above, let's just have these in the > >

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 05:04:15PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Do we usually repeat the changes listed in the backwards > > compatibility section later, in the "Changes" section? If not, then > > instead of the first two items above, let's just have these in the > > backwards-compatibility sect

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:00:31PM +0200, Erikjan Rijkers wrote: > I just spotted some more small stuff: > > s/IF NOT EXIST /IF NOT EXISTS /g # 2 x > > > It actually had me doubting, but yes that -S should be there... Fixed, thanks. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us Enterprise

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 02:25:08PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 22.04.2013 23:06, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:11:48PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >>>E.1.3.2.1. Write-Ahead Log (WAL) > >>> > >>>Store WAL in a continuous stream, rather than skipping the last

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

I just spotted some more small stuff: s/IF NOT EXIST /IF NOT EXISTS /g # 2 x It actually had me doubting, but yes that -S should be there... Thanks, Erik Rijkers -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgr

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 05:36:03PM +0800, Jov wrote: > E.1.3.1.4： > > Improve performance of the CREATE TABLE ... ON COMMIT DELETE ROWS clause by > only issuing delete if the temporary table was accessed (Heikki Linnakangas) > > should be: >              CREATE TEMP TABLE ... ON COMMIT DELETE ROW

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:12:58AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote: > On 21 April 2013 06:02, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3 > > beta1 on April 29, with a release on May 2. Those dates might change, > > but that is the current plan. I have

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On 22.04.2013 23:06, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:11:48PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: E.1.3.2.1. Write-Ahead Log (WAL) Store WAL in a continuous stream, rather than skipping the last 16MB segment every 4GB (Heikki Linnakangas) BACKWARD COMPATIBLE BREAK Restruct

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On 21 April 2013 06:02, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3 > beta1 on April 29, with a release on May 2. Those dates might change, > but that is the current plan. I have completed a draft 9.3 release > notes, which you can view here: > >

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 05:53:43PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Some more diacritics .. Thanks, applied. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-ha

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

Some more diacritics .. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/release-9.3.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/release-9.3.sgml index 7c46bd3..68d04a7 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/release-9.3.sgml +++ b/doc/sr

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:11:48PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >Allow tooling like pg_receivexlog to run on computers with different > >architectures (Heikki Linnakangas) > > This probably should be mentioned in the backwards-compatibility > section. Any 3rd party tools that speak the stre

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 04:48:58PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 01:54:03PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3 > > > > beta1 on April 29, with a release

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 03:19:36PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> In this item > >> Add support to event triggers (Dimitri Fontaine, Tom Lane) > >> I am not sure why you list Tom. I think Robert should be listed > >> instead. > > > > Tom d

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 01:54:03PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3 > > > beta1 on April 29, with a release on May 2. Those dates might change, > > > but that is the current plan.

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> In this item >> Add support to event triggers (Dimitri Fontaine, Tom Lane) >> I am not sure why you list Tom. I think Robert should be listed >> instead. > > Tom did a massive fix/cleanup of that code. I have added Robert. I do not thin

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

Allow tooling like pg_receivexlog to run on computers with different architectures (Heikki Linnakangas) This probably should be mentioned in the backwards-compatibility section. Any 3rd party tools that speak the streaming replication protocol are affected. E.1.3.2.1. Write-Ahead Log (WAL)

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 01:54:03PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3 > > beta1 on April 29, with a release on May 2. Those dates might change, > > but that is the current plan. I have completed a draft 9.3 r

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

Bruce Momjian wrote: > I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3 > beta1 on April 29, with a release on May 2. Those dates might change, > but that is the current plan. I have completed a draft 9.3 release > notes, which you can view here: > > http://momjian.us/pg

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

2013-04-21 15:10 keltezéssel, Bruce Momjian írta: On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 09:34:10AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: 2013-04-21 07:02 keltezéssel, Bruce Momjian írta: I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3 beta1 on April 29, with a release on May 2. Those dates mi

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On 2013-04-21 14:50:07 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Bruce, > > I don't see parallel pg_dump in the release notes. I thought that got > committed? E.1.3.8.2. pg_dump: Add pg_dump --jobs to dump in parallel when using directory output format (Joachim Wieland) Greetings, Andres Freund --

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

Bruce, I don't see parallel pg_dump in the release notes. I thought that got committed? Anyway, see the pgsql-advocacy list for a longish discussion about what we should consider the "major" fetures for 9.3. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hack

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 02:45:42PM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3 > beta1 on April 29, with a release on May 2. Those dates might change, > but that is th

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 09:34:10AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: > 2013-04-21 07:02 keltezéssel, Bruce Momjian írta: > >I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3 > >beta1 on April 29, with a release on May 2. Those dates might change, > >but that is the current plan.

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:36:32PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > * Improve grouping of sessions waiting for commit_delay (Peter Geoghegan) > > I think this should be under "General Performance". It's definitely a > performance feature. OK, moved. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On 2013-04-20 22:36:32 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I will be working on polishing them for the next ten days, so any > > feedback, patches, or commits are welcome. I still need to add lots of > > SGML markup. > > I've noticed a few t

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3 > beta1 on April 29, with a release on May 2. Those dates might change, > but that is the current plan. I have completed a draft 9.3 release > notes, which you can view he

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

2013-04-21 07:02 keltezéssel, Bruce Momjian írta: I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3 beta1 on April 29, with a release on May 2. Those dates might change, but that is the current plan. I have completed a draft 9.3 release notes, which you can view here:

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I will be working on polishing them for the next ten days, so any > > feedback, patches, or commits are welcome. I still need to add lots of > > SGML markup. > > I've noticed a

Re: [HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I will be working on polishing them for the next ten days, so any > feedback, patches, or commits are welcome. I still need to add lots of > SGML markup. I've noticed a few things: * Allow heap-only tuple updates on system tables (Andres

[HACKERS] 9.3 Beta1 status report

I am not sure if Tom shared yet, but we are planning to package 9.3 beta1 on April 29, with a release on May 2. Those dates might change, but that is the current plan. I have completed a draft 9.3 release notes, which you can view here: http://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-9-3.html I wi