On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 12:28 +0530, NikhilS wrote:
Please find attached the WIP version 1 of the auto partitioning patch.
There was discussion on this a while back on -hackers at:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-03/msg00375.php
Please note that this patch tries to automate
Hi Simon,
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 12:28 +0530, NikhilS wrote:
Please find attached the WIP version 1 of the auto partitioning patch.
There was discussion on this a while back on -hackers at:
NikhilS wrote:
* Clear explanation of the new syntax, with examples of each permutation
so we can see how that would work. In light of recent discussions on
-hackers we need to take a view on whether we should go with Gavin's
suggested syntax or this syntax.
* There are some additional
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NikhilS wrote:
Thanks for taking a look. But if I am not mistaken Gavin and co. are working
on a much exhaustive proposal. In light of that maybe this patch might not
be needed in the first place?
I will wait for discussion and a subsequent collective
On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 20:15 +0530, NikhilS wrote:
Thanks for taking a look. But if I am not mistaken Gavin and co. are
working on a much exhaustive proposal. In light of that maybe this
patch might not be needed in the first place?
We should wait to apply, but not wait to discuss. Somebody
On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 11:18 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think it is unwise to wait on Gavin for a more complex implemention
--- we might end up with nothing for 8.4. As long as your syntax is
compatible with whatever Gavin proposed Gavin can add on to your patch
once it is applied.
The
ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here is a patch to log conflicted queries on deadlocks. Queries are dumped
at CONTEXT in the same sorting order as DETAIL messages. Those queries are
picked from pg_stat_get_backend_activity, as same as pg_stat_activity,
so that users cannot see other
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here is a patch to log conflicted queries on deadlocks. Queries are dumped
at CONTEXT in the same sorting order as DETAIL messages. Those queries are
picked from pg_stat_get_backend_activity, as same as
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's no way the other transaction's timeout could fire while we're doing
this is there? Are we still holding the lw locks at this point which would
prevent that?
Ah, reading the patch I see comments indicating that yes that's possible and
no, we
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ah, reading the patch I see comments indicating that yes that's possible and
no, we don't really care. So, ok. If the backend disappears entirely could the
string be empty?
Right, we'd be pointing at a BackendStatusArray entry that was now
unused, or
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One thing that I worried about for a little bit is that you can imagine
privilege-escalation scenarios.
Perhaps we should only do this if the current user's ID is the same as the
outermost session user's ID?
A
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NikhilS wrote:
Thanks for taking a look. But if I am not mistaken Gavin and co. are
working
on a much exhaustive proposal. In light of that maybe this patch might
not
be
Hi all,
I think the intent of the syntax / parser patch from Gavin and Jeff was to get
consensus from PG on the syntax prior to proceeding with the next chunk of work.
The next chunk of work is now well underway - with support for ALTER TABLE
and partitioning, along with fast inserts into the
13 matches
Mail list logo
