Heikki
Unfortunately not all compilers support varargs macros. I bumped into this in
February, see
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4f3b72e0.8040...@enterprisedb.com. My
last attempt to fix this was
at http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-04/msg00812.php. That
patch is
On Nov10, 2012, at 00:08 , Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 20:48 +0100, Markus Wanner wrote:
>> Given your description of option 2 I was under the impression that each
>> page already has a bit indicating whether or not the page is protected
>> by a checksum. Why do you need more bits th
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 01:53:19AM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > I was thrown off by your use of a different, albeit
> > mathematically
> > equivalent, algorithm from the one used in box_overlap(). Please don't do
> > that; either use box
This patch is now marked Returned with Feedback in the CF, but I see no
on-list feedback. Did some review happen?
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 9 November 2012 23:24, Tom Lane wrote:
> During normal running, operations such as btree page splits are
> extremely careful about the order in which they acquire and release
> buffer locks, if they're doing something that concurrently modifies
> multiple pages.
>
> During WAL replay, that all
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 08:20:59AM +0200, Ants Aasma wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Ants Aasma wrote:
> > I also took two profiles (attached). AtEOXact_RelationCache seems to
> > be the culprit for the quadratic growth.
>
> One more thing that jumps out as quadratic from the profiles is
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 04:23:40PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 08:59:21PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I am actually now dumping git head/9.3, so I a
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 04:23:40PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > Actually, pg_upgrade needs pg_dump to restore all those sequence values.
>
> I did an experiment where I had pg_dump just output dummy values
> rather than hitting the database. Once pg_upgrade moves the relation
> files over, the du
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I am confused why you see a loop. transfer_all_new_dbs() does a
> merge-join of old/new database names, then calls gen_db_file_maps(),
> which loops over the relations and calls create_rel_filename_map(),
> which adds to the map via array in
Simon Riggs writes:
> On 9 November 2012 23:24, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm inclined to think that we need to fix this by getting rid of
>> RestoreBkpBlocks per se, and instead having the per-WAL-record restore
>> routines dictate when each full-page image is restored (and whether or
>> not to release
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 07:17:34PM +0200, Ants Aasma wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I am confused why you see a loop. transfer_all_new_dbs() does a
> > merge-join of old/new database names, then calls gen_db_file_maps(),
> > which loops over the relations and c
I wrote:
> I'm inclined to think that we need to fix this by getting rid of
> RestoreBkpBlocks per se, and instead having the per-WAL-record restore
> routines dictate when each full-page image is restored (and whether or
> not to release the buffer lock immediately). That's not going to be a
> sm
On 10 November 2012 18:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> I'm inclined to think that we need to fix this by getting rid of
>> RestoreBkpBlocks per se, and instead having the per-WAL-record restore
>> routines dictate when each full-page image is restored (and whether or
>> not to release the buffer
Simon Riggs writes:
> On 10 November 2012 18:16, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Here's a WIP patch that attacks it in this way.
> Looks fine, but we need a top-level comment in btree code explaining
> why/how it follows the very well explained rules in the README.
Not sure what you'd want it to say exactly
While I'm looking at this: there seems to be a bug/inconsistency in
heap_xlog_freeze(). It uses a cleanup lock in the "normal" code path,
but it doesn't tell RestoreBkpBlocks to use a cleanup lock. Which
choice is correct?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers ma
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 04:06:38PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > I did some more research and realized that I was not using --schema-only
> > like pg_upgrade uses. With that setting, things look like this:
> >
> ...
>
> For profiling pg_d
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 04:23:40PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> >
>> > Again, using SERIAL?
>>
>> Yep.
>
> Odd why yours is so much after.
You didn't build git head under --enable-casse
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:20:55PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 04:06:38PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > I did some more research and realized that I was not using --schema-only
> > > like pg_upgrade uses. Wi
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 02:45:54PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 04:23:40PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Again, using SERIAL?
> >>
> >> Yep.
> >
> > O
On Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:19 PM Noah Misch wrote:
> This patch is now marked Returned with Feedback in the CF, but I see no
> on-list feedback. Did some review happen?
No review happened for this patch.
It has returned due to slight confusion thinking that this is same as:
Patch for opti
Amit kapila wrote:
>
> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:19 PM Noah Misch wrote:
> > This patch is now marked Returned with Feedback in the CF, but I see no
> > on-list feedback. Did some review happen?
>
> No review happened for this patch.
> It has returned due to slight confusion thinking tha
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 09:10:30AM -0500, Matthew Gerber wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > On 11/04/2012 08:47 AM, Matthew Gerber wrote:
> > So I attached the VS debugger, but the server died without raising an
> > exception in VS. Not sure what's going on here.
No
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 02:30:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Matthew Gerber writes:
> >> Here is the command that was executing when the 0xC409 exception was
> >> raised:
> >> INSERT INTO places (bounding_box,country,full_name,id,name,type,url)
> >> VALUES
> >> (st_transform_null(ST_GeometryFro
On 10 November 2012 21:24, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> On 10 November 2012 18:16, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Here's a WIP patch that attacks it in this way.
>
>> Looks fine, but we need a top-level comment in btree code explaining
>> why/how it follows the very well explained rules in the
24 matches
Mail list logo
