On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 4:34 AM, Maksim Milyutin wrote:
> 13.06.2018 12:40, Maksim Milyutin wrote:
>
> On 09.06.2018 22:49, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Maksim Milyutin writes:
>
> On hot standby I faced with the similar problem.
> ...
> is planned 4.940 ms on master and *254.741* ms on standby.
>
> (I wo
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 1:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Maksim Milyutin writes:
>> On hot standby I faced with the similar problem.
>> ...
>> is planned 4.940 ms on master and *254.741* ms on standby.
>
> Presumably the problem is that the standby isn't authorized to change
> the btree index's "entry
On 2018-Jun-15, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I propose removing the "Included attributes in B-tree indexes"
> top-level section of chapter 63 from the user facing documentation.
Hi Peter,
I don't necessarily object to the proposed change, but I think you
should generally wait a bit longer for others
On 2018-06-16 23:31:49 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
>
>
> On 16.06.2018 22:23, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2018-06-13 16:09:45 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> > > Usage:
> > > 1. At master: create extension wal_prefetch
> > > 2. At replica: Call pg_wal_prefetch() function: i
On 2018-06-16 23:25:34 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
>
>
> On 16.06.2018 22:02, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2018-06-16 11:38:59 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > >
> > > On 06/15/2018 08:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > On 2018-06-14 10:13:44 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> > > > >
> >
On 16.06.2018 22:23, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2018-06-13 16:09:45 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
Usage:
1. At master: create extension wal_prefetch
2. At replica: Call pg_wal_prefetch() function: it will not return until you
interrupt it.
FWIW, I think the proper design would rather b
On 16.06.2018 22:02, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2018-06-16 11:38:59 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 06/15/2018 08:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2018-06-14 10:13:44 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
On 14.06.2018 09:52, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 1:09 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik
Hi!
It is cool to see this in Postgres 11. However:
> 4) vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor can be set either by GUC or
> reloption.
> Default value is 0.1. So, by default cleanup scan is triggered after
> increasing of
> table size by 10%.
>
vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor can be set to the
Hi,
On 2018-06-16 21:34:30 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > - it leads to guaranteed double buffering, in a way that's just about
> > guaranteed to *never* be useful. Because we'd only prefetch whenever
> > there's an upcoming write, there's simply no benefit in the page
> > staying in the pag
On 06/16/2018 09:02 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-06-16 11:38:59 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 06/15/2018 08:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On 2018-06-14 10:13:44 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
On 14.06.2018 09:52, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 1
Hi,
On 2018-06-13 16:09:45 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> Usage:
> 1. At master: create extension wal_prefetch
> 2. At replica: Call pg_wal_prefetch() function: it will not return until you
> interrupt it.
FWIW, I think the proper design would rather be a background worker that
does this wor
On 2018-06-16 11:38:59 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>
> On 06/15/2018 08:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2018-06-14 10:13:44 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 14.06.2018 09:52, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 1:09 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik
> > > > wrote:
>
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2018-06-16 13:29:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> + # Similarly disable useless truncation warnings from gcc 8+
>> + PGAC_PROG_CC_VAR_OPT(NOT_THE_CFLAGS, [-Wformat-truncation])
>> + if test -n "$NOT_THE_CFLAGS"; then
>> +CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -Wno-format-truncation"
>> + f
Hi,
On 2018-06-16 13:29:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I propose the attached patch to disable these warnings if the compiler
> knows the switch for them. I did not turn them off for CXX though;
> anyone think there's a need to?
No, not for now. I don't think it's likely that the amount of C++ wil
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2018-04-28 12:16:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In the meantime, I think our response to GCC 8 should just be to
>> enable -Wno-format-truncation. Certainly so in the back branches.
>> There isn't one of these changes that is actually fixing a bug,
>> which to me says tha
On 06/13/2018 06:56 PM, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>> I.e. we already do reorder the group clauses to match ORDER BY, to only
>> require a single sort. This happens in preprocess_groupclause(), which
>> also explains the reasoning behind that.
> Huh. I missed that. That means group_keys_reorder_by_pat
I wrote:
> Neil Conway writes:
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 7:53 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'm a bit hesitant to muck with this behavior, given that it's stood
>>> for ~20 years. However, if we did want to touch it, maybe the right
>>> thing would be to give up the absolutist position that f(x) and x
Hi folks,
I thought I’d share an update to my pet project, which dynamically rewrites
queries to target materialized views when they are available and can satisfy a
query (or part of it) with a lower cost plan.
The extension is now a regular EXTENSION and no longer tied in to the FDW
mechanism
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 9:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Rajkumar Raghuwanshi writes:
>>> I am getting a server crash for below test case.
>>
>>> postgres=# select (select max((select t1.c2 from test t1 where t1.c1 =
>>> t2.c1))) from test t2;
>>
Greetings,
* Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 06/16/2018 12:06 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> >On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:38 PM, Tomas Vondra
> > wrote:
> >>On 06/15/2018 08:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >>>On 2018-06-14 10:13:44 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> On 14.06.20
>
> > I'm not sure it is usefull in release notes since it is more about API,
> and not
> > user-facing change. Just in case.
> > GiST opclasses now can omit compress and decompress functions. If
> compress
> > function is omited, IndexOnlyScan is enabled for opclass without any
> extra
> > change.
On 15 June 2018 at 21:23, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I think the main objectionable point is that of making servers behave in
> a way that could lose data, if applications assume that transactions
> behave in the way they do today. I propose that we solve this by
> allowing this feature to be enabl
On 06/16/2018 12:06 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:38 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
On 06/15/2018 08:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2018-06-14 10:13:44 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
On 14.06.2018 09:52, Thomas Munro wrote:
Why stop at the page cache... what about shared
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:38 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> On 06/15/2018 08:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2018-06-14 10:13:44 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
>>> On 14.06.2018 09:52, Thomas Munro wrote:
Why stop at the page cache... what about shared buffers?
>>>
>>> It is good question. I
On 06/15/2018 08:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2018-06-14 10:13:44 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
On 14.06.2018 09:52, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 1:09 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
pg_wal_prefetch function will infinitely traverse WAL and prefetch block
references i
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 4:09 PM, Surafel Temesgen wrote:
>
>
> thank you for pointing me that i add basic test and it seems to me the rest
> of the test is covered by column_inserts test
@@ -172,6 +172,7 @@ typedef struct _dumpOptions
char*outputSuperuser;
int sequence_data; /* dump sequ
26 matches
Mail list logo
