Re: [PATCHES] Small patch to compile on IRIX 6.5 with gcc

2007-02-26 Thread Matteo Beccati
Hi Andrew, + #include internal/stdlib_core.h + This will break many, possibly most platforms. It is certainly absent on this Linux box. + #include sys/file.h + Why is this needed? Perhaps if you showed us the errors that result from not having these things we could

[PATCHES] Split _bt_insertonpg to two functions

2007-02-26 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Here's a patch that: Moves the logic to find a page with enough room from _bt_insertonpg to a new function, _bt_findinsertloc. It makes the code more readable, and simplifies the forthcoming Grouped Index Tuples patch. Also, the insert location within page used to be calculated twice for

Re: [PATCHES] Recalculating OldestXmin in a long-running vacuum

2007-02-26 Thread NikhilS
Hi, I was wondering if we can apply the same logic of recalculating OldestXmin within IndexBuildHeapScan which occurs as part of create index operation? Having to index lesser number of tuples should be a good save in the CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY case, if the above is possible? Regards,

Re: [PATCHES] [BUGS] BUG #2969: Inaccuracies in Solaris FAQ

2007-02-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Zdenek Kotala wrote: There is Solaris FAQ update. Please, look on it and let me know any comments. The actual answer to the question Can I compile PostgreSQL with Kerberos v5 support? is Yes, why not?. I don't think Can I use this weird internal private library

[PATCHES] 1-byte packed varlena headers

2007-02-26 Thread Gregory Stark
Updated patch at: http://community.enterprisedb.com/varlena/patch-varvarlena-12.patch.gz This fixes a rather critical oversight which caused it all to appear to work but not actually save any space. I've added an assertion check that the predicted tuple size matches the tuple size generated

[PATCHES] Numeric patch to add special-case representations for 8 bytes

2007-02-26 Thread Gregory Stark
I've uploaded a quick hack to store numerics in 8 bytes when possible. http://community.enterprisedb.com/numeric-hack-1.patch This is a bit of a kludge since it doesn't actually provide any interface for external clients of the numeric module to parse the resulting data. Ie, the macros in

Re: [PATCHES] Allow \pset to parse on or off for boolean values

2007-02-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews and approves it. ---

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?

2007-02-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
I am a little concerned about a log_* setting that is INFO. I understand why you used INFO (for log_min_error_messages), but INFO is inconsistent with the log* prefix, and by default INFO doesn't appear in the log file. So, by default, the INFO is going to go to the user terminal, and not to the

Re: [PATCHES] correct format for date, time, timestamp for XML functionality

2007-02-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews and approves it. ---

Re: [PATCHES] pg_standby Error cleanup

2007-02-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews and approves it. ---

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?

2007-02-26 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 13:34 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: I am a little concerned about a log_* setting that is INFO. I understand why you used INFO (for log_min_error_messages), but INFO is inconsistent with the log* prefix, and by default INFO doesn't appear in the log file. Yeh, LOG would

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?

2007-02-26 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeh, LOG would be most appropriate, but thats not possible. You have not given any good reason for that. log_min_messages allows only DEBUG5, DEBUG4, DEBUG3, DEBUG2, DEBUG1, INFO, NOTICE and WARNING for non-error states. I don't think you understand

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?

2007-02-26 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 14:11 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeh, LOG would be most appropriate, but thats not possible. You have not given any good reason for that. The idea of the patch is that it generates a log message which then invokes

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?

2007-02-26 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The idea of the patch is that it generates a log message which then invokes log_min_error_statement so that the SQL statement is displayed. LOG is not on the list of options there, otherwise I would use it. As I said, you don't understand how the logging

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?

2007-02-26 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 14:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The idea of the patch is that it generates a log message which then invokes log_min_error_statement so that the SQL statement is displayed. LOG is not on the list of options there, otherwise I would use

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?

2007-02-26 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 14:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The idea of the patch is that it generates a log message which then invokes log_min_error_statement so that the SQL statement is displayed. LOG is not on the list of

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?

2007-02-26 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 14:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 14:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The idea of the patch is that it generates a log message which then invokes log_min_error_statement so that the

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?

2007-02-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
Simon Riggs wrote: On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 13:34 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: I am a little concerned about a log_* setting that is INFO. I understand why you used INFO (for log_min_error_messages), but INFO is inconsistent with the log* prefix, and by default INFO doesn't appear in the log

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?

2007-02-26 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is not the first GUC that has needed this. Exactly. I think that we simply made a mistake in the initial implementation of log_min_error_statement: we failed to think about whether it should use client or server priority ordering, and the

[PATCHES] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option (patch)

2007-02-26 Thread Simon Riggs
A prototype patch is posted to -patches, which is WORK IN PROGRESS. [This patch matches discussion thread on -hackers.] The following TODO items remain 1. discuss which process will issue regular XLogFlush(). If agreed, implement WALWriter process to perform this task. (Yes, the patch isn't

Re: [PATCHES] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option (patch)

2007-02-26 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A prototype patch is posted to -patches, which is WORK IN PROGRESS. [This patch matches discussion thread on -hackers.] What does this accomplish other than adding syntactic sugar over a feature that really doesn't work well anyway? I don't see any point

Re: [PATCHES] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option (patch)

2007-02-26 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 18:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A prototype patch is posted to -patches, which is WORK IN PROGRESS. [This patch matches discussion thread on -hackers.] What does this accomplish other than adding syntactic sugar over a feature that

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Load distributed checkpoint

2007-02-26 Thread ITAGAKI Takahiro
Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com wrote: Can I have a copy of the patch to add to the Sun testing queue? This is the revised version of the patch. Delay factors in checkpoints can be specified by checkpoint_write_percent, checkpoint_nap_percent and checkpoint_sync_percent. They are relative to

[PATCHES]

2007-02-26 Thread John Bartlett
Hi, This is the first posting to the community of the WIP patch for the Updatable Cursor implementation. I want to confirm that the community is satisfied that the effort to date is in a suitable direction and to get comments on the development to date. The patch is in the following

[PATCHES] POSIX shared memory support

2007-02-26 Thread Chris Marcellino
Recapitulating and addressing some of the issues with my previous attempt at this feature: PostgreSQL currently uses the System V shared memory APIs to access shared memory. On Mac OS X and other BSDs, the default System V shared memory limits are often very low and require adjustment for

Re: [PATCHES] POSIX shared memory support

2007-02-26 Thread Tom Lane
Chris Marcellino [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The System V shared memory facilities provide a method to determine who is attached to a shared memory segment. This is used to prevent backends that were orphaned by crashed or killed database processes from corrupting the data- base as it is

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option (patch)

2007-02-26 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 18:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: What does this accomplish other than adding syntactic sugar over a feature that really doesn't work well anyway? This patch doesn't intend to implement group commit. I've changed the meaning of

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Load distributed checkpoint

2007-02-26 Thread Inaam Rana
On 2/26/07, ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com wrote: Can I have a copy of the patch to add to the Sun testing queue? This is the revised version of the patch. Delay factors in checkpoints can be specified by checkpoint_write_percent,

Re: [PATCHES] POSIX shared memory support

2007-02-26 Thread Chris Marcellino
On Feb 26, 2007, at 10:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Chris Marcellino [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The System V shared memory facilities provide a method to determine who is attached to a shared memory segment. This is used to prevent backends that were orphaned by crashed or killed database processes