Re: [HACKERS] Is there a way to run heap_insert() AFTER ExecInsertIndexTuples() ?

Hi, Tom Lane írta: Zoltan Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Would it be acceptable? No, because you can't create index entries when you haven't yet got the TID for the heap tuple. What do you propose doing, insert a dummy index entry and then go back to fill it in later? Aside

[HACKERS] Possible BUG in -head with stats

Hello, O.k. no one seemed interested in our 8.2 issues, so I thought i would test on -head ;) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/pg$ strace -c -p 3545 Process 3545 attached - interrupt to quit Process 3545 detached % time seconds usecs/call callserrors syscall -- --- ---

Re: [HACKERS] Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview

Galy Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Let's come to the core issue we care about: do we need the stop-on-dime > feature to stop vacuum immediately? As my previous opinion: if there > are some problems for long running vacuum, yes we *did need* to stop > vacuum immediately. There's always SIGINT.

Re: [HACKERS] Is there a way to run heap_insert() AFTER ExecInsertIndexTuples() ?

Zoltan Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Would it be acceptable? No, because you can't create index entries when you haven't yet got the TID for the heap tuple. What do you propose doing, insert a dummy index entry and then go back to fill it in later? Aside from approximately doubling t

Re: [HACKERS] POSTGRES WAL

> I want setup replication for postgres server , please help me on this > issue. I dont want to use any third party programs. I like to do it > using WAL. This is not the correct list for these kinds of questions. Please try pgsql-general instead. Thanks. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun Sa

Re: [HACKERS] Packed short varlenas, what next?

Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've disabled packed varlenas for user-defined data types and find tsearch2 > and _int still fail. tsearch2 requires the small patch attached. _int seems to > be unrelated. As of when? I committed fixes earlier tonight that seem to handle the case of VA

Re: [HACKERS] POSTGRES WAL

Hi , I want setup replication for postgres server , please help me on this issue. I dont want to use any third party programs. I like to do it using WAL. Regards J Mageshwaran Mageshwaran wrote: Thanks tsunakawa , harris Jonah H. Harris wrote: On 2/28/07, Mageshwaran <[EMAIL PROT

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

On 2/28/07, Jonah H. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I added adler32 to Gurjeet Singh's crc testing utility, compiled it with gcc 4.0.0 on a single-core Opteron running FC4, and configured it for 8K block sizes. Tested Fletcher and seeing similar results ratio-wise. Using O3, it's: Generati

[HACKERS] Is there a way to run heap_insert() AFTER ExecInsertIndexTuples() ?

Hi, I would like to be able to harden the conditions of generating IDENTITY columns so the events below run in this order: - assign values for regular columns (with or without DEFAULT) - NOT NULL checks on regular columns - CHECK constraints whose expression contains only regular columns - assi

Re: [HACKERS] Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview

Simon Riggs wrote: > Galy, please hear that people like your idea and understand your use > case, but just don't like all of the proposal, just the main thrust of > it. The usual way is that > (people that agree + amount of your exact idea remaining) = 100% Thank you. I am glad to hear that. :)

Re: [HACKERS] Packed short varlenas, what next?

"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > FWIW, when I went to bed last night I had hstore and intarray working, > but was still fooling with ltree. Didn't get to the others yet. Thanks, I was getting lost in the gist stuff. I've disabled packed varlenas for user-defined data types and find ts

Re: [HACKERS] POSTGRES WAL

Thanks tsunakawa , harris Jonah H. Harris wrote: On 2/28/07, Mageshwaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is there any method or utility to convert content of WAL files into Human Readable format. Not really. The only two WAL utilities available that I know of are Tom's xlogdump and the SoC pr

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] urgent: upgraded to 8.2, getting kernel panics

On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 15:57:02 +0200, Devrim GUNDUZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Upgrading OS will probably solve your problem; since there is no way to > upgrade FC4 kernel unless you want to compile kernel source on your > system. And good luck with that. Fedora still back patches stuff f

Re: [HACKERS] POSTGRES WAL

On 2/28/07, Mageshwaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is there any method or utility to convert content of WAL files into Human Readable format. Not really. The only two WAL utilities available that I know of are Tom's xlogdump and the SoC project based on it called XlogViewer. http://pgfoundry.

Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] urgent: upgraded to 8.2, getting kernel panics

On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 18:14:25 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On friday we upgraded a critical backend server to postgresql 8.2 > > running on fedora core 4. > > Umm ... why that particular choice of OS? Red Hat dropped update > s

Re: [HACKERS] POSTGRES WAL

Is there any method or utility to convert content of WAL files into Human Readable format. xlogdump (or xlog viewer) might help. Sorry, I've never used it yet. http://pgfoundry.org/projects/xlogviewer/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In version

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Robert Treat wrote: Sergey, could you do a little research on what behavior other databases that support user quotes exhibit? This might help folks judge whether any proposed solution for postgres will be above or below potential users expectations. Ok, I will. Regards,

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

On Wednesday 28 February 2007 18:02, Sergey E. Koposov wrote: > On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Joachim Wieland wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:56:13PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> It hasn't ever made it onto the TODO list, which means there's not a > >> consensus that we need it. > > > > Such a patch co

[HACKERS] POSTGRES WAL

Hi , Is there any method or utility to convert content of WAL files into Human Readable format. Regards J Mageshwaran Andrew Dunstan wrote: Chad Wagner wrote: On 2/26/07, *Josh Berkus* > wrote: > Just wondering after reading so many mails from Hackers

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

On 2/28/07, Jonah H. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Last time I checked, Teradata used a modified Fletcher checksum as well; I wasn't aware of Adler32. I added adler32 to Gurjeet Singh's crc testing utility, compiled it with gcc 4.0.0 on a single-core Opteron running FC4, and configured it f

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

On 2/28/07, J. Andrew Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A popular alternative to CRC32 for this purpose is the significantly cheaper and almost as effective is the Adler32 algorithm. I know Google used this algorithm when they added checksumming to their database to tame inexplicable transient c

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

On Feb 28, 2007, at 4:40 PM, Jonah H. Harris wrote: Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, Sybase, Teradata, MySQL, and Firebird have a clever feature called page checksumming which I think we should copy because it's simple and effective at detecting page-level corruption due to torn pages and/or faulty stora

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

On 2/28/07, Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well color me surprised, writev is not nearly so much faster than CRC as I had expected: All fun aside, are you going to be submitting a patch for this? -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation

Re: [HACKERS] What is CheckPoint.undo needed for?

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. --- Fl

Re: [HACKERS] VACUUM and spoiling the buffer manager cache

"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > VACUUM's current behaviour is to take blocks it has touched and place > > > them on the head of the freelist, allowing them to be reused. > > > > No, it puts them at the tail of the freelist. > > That's a minor point because the freelist is mostly

Re: [HACKERS] Dead Space Map version 2

Hello, long time no see. This topic looks interesting. I'm enrious of Itagaki-san and others. I can't do now what I want, due to other work that I don't want to do (isn't my boss seeing this?). I wish I could join the community some day and contribute to the development like the great experts he

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

On 2/28/07, Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Except that's not what you're doing. There's nothing wrong with saying "foo does this clever thing I think we should copy because ". Nor even "foo does this thing, would that help us?" But what you seem to be saying is "*Because* foo does this

Re: [HACKERS] Compilation errors

Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Actually, we couldn't.The definition section from the .l file gets included after these functions. So we'd need to include something in gram.y before including scan.c. Actually, since we don't use any of those functions, the f

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES]

FAST PostgreSQL wrote: > On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 04:28, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> I have added this to the developer's FAQ to clarify the situtation of >> posting a patch: >> >> PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. By posting a patch >> to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are givi

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES]

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 04:28, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have added this to the developer's FAQ to clarify the situtation of > posting a patch: > > PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. By posting a patch > to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL > Global

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

"Jeff Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 21:13 +, Gregory Stark wrote: >> Hm that's an interesting thought. We only really have to check pages that >> would have received a full page write since the last checkpoint. So if we >> made > > Do we ever do a partial page wri

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

Simon, > I think if you address me in a mail, it would be best not to explicitly > *remove* my name from the address list. I was trying to remove everyone but the list address. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2/28/07, Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Which is, of course, how everyone else does it. >> >> I happen to agree with your conclusion but this line of argument is >> exceptionally u

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On 2/28/07, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Am am not comfortable starting and having something fail later. > > Then do you have some other idea for protecting pages from being torn > without storing an entire backup copy or performing a block-level > consiste

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 09:32 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > Simon, I think if you address me in a mail, it would be best not to explicitly *remove* my name from the address list. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcas

Re: [HACKERS] Compilation errors

Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Actually, we couldn't.The definition section from the .l file gets > included after these functions. So we'd need to include something in > gram.y before including scan.c. Actually, since we don't use any of those functions, the following advice from

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Joachim Wieland wrote: On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:56:13PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: It hasn't ever made it onto the TODO list, which means there's not a consensus that we need it. Such a patch could improve the acceptance of PostgreSQL in shared hosting environments. Note th

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote: The bad point is not that we would rollback the transaction. The bad point is what happens when you need to rollback a transaction and in your scenario it is quite plausible that a large rollback could occur, more than once, causing the requirement of

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:56:13PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > It hasn't ever made it onto the TODO list, which means there's not a > consensus that we need it. Such a patch could improve the acceptance of PostgreSQL in shared hosting environments. Note that a database without quotas can be filled up

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 21:13 +, Gregory Stark wrote: > Hm that's an interesting thought. We only really have to check pages that > would have received a full page write since the last checkpoint. So if we made Do we ever do a partial page write, or is what you're saying equivalent to "we only h

Re: [HACKERS] Possible Bug: high CPU usage for stats collector in 8.2

Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Darcy Buskermolen wrote: >> I'm observing high CPU usage (95%) of a 2.6GHz opteron by the stats >> collector >> on an 8.2.3 box investigation has lead me to belive that the stats file is >> written a lot more often that once every 500ms the following shows this >> beh

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

> I don't know, but in my opinion, I don't see anything bad in requiring > dropping the data if the quota is full. That's what usually occurs in > the case of normal filesystem quota... If you don't have a space there, > you cannot edit files, copy them etc... > And that solution should be definit

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 03:57:56PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > It's worse than that, because VACUUM FULL will actually bloat the > indexes on the way to being able to reduce the table size (since it has > to make new index entries for rows it moves). If the limit is strictly I was thinking that inde

Re: [HACKERS] Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview

Gregory Stark wrote: "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: How much memory would it save during VACUUM on a 1 billion row table with 200 million dead rows? Would that reduce the number of cycles a normal non-interrupted VACUUM would perform? It would depend on how many dead tuples you hav

Re: [HACKERS] Compilation errors

I wrote: I guess we could conditionally add prototypes for those functions to all the .l files if you really want to move to 2.5.33. Kinda yucky, though. Actually, we couldn't.The definition section from the .l file gets included after these functions. So we'd need to include something

Re: [HACKERS] Compilation errors

Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Gregory Stark wrote: flex 2.5.33 Aha! Known to be broken, iirc. Use flex 2.5.4a No, the known breakages with flex were years ago; 2.5.33 has only been out a year. I think 2.5.31 might have been the one we sa

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

On 2/28/07, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Am am not comfortable starting and having something fail later. Then do you have some other idea for protecting pages from being torn without storing an entire backup copy or performing a block-level consistency check? How other databases d

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

On 2/28/07, Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Which is, of course, how everyone else does it. I happen to agree with your conclusion but this line of argument is exceptionally unconvincing. In fact in this crowd you'll tend to turn people o

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Tom Lane wrote: "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: Generally, rolling back a transaction doesn't reduce the amount of disk used. Only VACUUM FULL actually shrinks relations. Right, but what I mean was -- if we rollback because we

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Tom Lane wrote: "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: Generally, rolling back a transaction doesn't reduce the amount of disk used. Only VACUUM FULL actually shrinks relations. Right, but what I mean was -- if we rollback because we

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Which is, of course, how everyone else does it. I happen to agree with your conclusion but this line of argument is exceptionally unconvincing. In fact in this crowd you'll tend to turn people off and lose people if you say things like that rather

Re: [HACKERS] Compilation errors

Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Gregory Stark wrote: >> flex 2.5.33 > Aha! Known to be broken, iirc. Use flex 2.5.4a No, the known breakages with flex were years ago; 2.5.33 has only been out a year. I think 2.5.31 might have been the one we saw big problems with (there's a note war

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for Implenting read-only queries during wal replay (SoC 2007)

Thanks Josh, I'll look for the earlier one and try to add it there... -Paul -Original Message- From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:09 AM To: Paul Silveira Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for Implenting

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: >> Generally, rolling back a transaction doesn't reduce the amount of disk >> used. Only VACUUM FULL actually shrinks relations. > Right, but what I mean was -- if we rollback because we hit quota we > could potentially

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

On 2/28/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am not trying to pick on the issue but I do think it is important to recognize that literally only those in the know, are going to ever touch the postgresql.conf. I agree. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 Ente

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On 2/28/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Right, but I don't know anyone that keeps checkpoints at 5 minutes. >> > At least not on OLTP configurations. >> >> Uhmm... most do because most don't ever touch the postgresql.conf and >> those that do, don't touc

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

On 2/28/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Right, but I don't know anyone that keeps checkpoints at 5 minutes. > At least not on OLTP configurations. Uhmm... most do because most don't ever touch the postgresql.conf and those that do, don't touch checkpoints because they don't unde

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

On 2/28/07, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm not saying there's no cost, but the extra recovery cost seems lower to me than the CRC cost on every data page read during operation. I agree, I just think it should be configurable. Also, if we find an error, do we even have the ability t

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 14:54 -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On 2/28/07, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's 5 minutes of data, in the default configuration. > > Right, but I don't know anyone that keeps checkpoints at 5 minutes. > At least not on OLTP configurations. > It's got a ha

[HACKERS] 8.1.8 Installer Fails on Win2k Server

I am installing on a Cisco Media Server 7800 running Win2k Server and am noticing that the installer fails every time with the error dialog saying "Failed to create process for initdb: Access is denied". It looks like that I need to change some permission in the registry allowing other users spawn

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On 2/28/07, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> That's 5 minutes of data, in the default configuration. > > Right, but I don't know anyone that keeps checkpoints at 5 minutes. > At least not on OLTP configurations. Uhmm... most do because most don't ever touch the po

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

Jonah H. Harris wrote: On 2/28/07, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But if the system was shut down uncleanly as the result of a Postgres crash or > fast shutdown of Postgres then that isn't an issue. And many users may prefer > to bring the system up as soon as possible as long as th

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

On 2/28/07, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That's 5 minutes of data, in the default configuration. Right, but I don't know anyone that keeps checkpoints at 5 minutes. At least not on OLTP configurations. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporati

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

On 2/28/07, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Keep in mind if you don't check it on startup, you will be checking it for every read, which for rare crashes, might not be wise. Well understood. That's how most everyone configures their database systems; they certainly don't optimize for

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 14:10 -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On 2/28/07, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > But if the system was shut down uncleanly as the result of a Postgres > > > crash or > > > fast shutdown of Postgres then that isn't an issue. And many users may > > > prefer > >

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On 2/28/07, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We have several methods suggested to check the blocks, like CRC. My > > point was that, whatever check method we use, we should be prepared to > > check on startup, or at least make it the default for a crash restart

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

On 2/28/07, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We have several methods suggested to check the blocks, like CRC. My point was that, whatever check method we use, we should be prepared to check on startup, or at least make it the default for a crash restart. Sounds like it should be a guc.

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On 2/28/07, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Am am not comfortable starting and having something fail later. > > Then do you have some other idea for protecting pages from being torn > without storing an entire backup copy or performing a block-level > consiste

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Tom Lane wrote: "Sergey E. Koposov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Per user AND per database (as Tom noted). But I dont see what's odd in it... It exists in Oracle, and I need quotas in the project on which I'm working. And I remember user requests for

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On 2/28/07, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > But if the system was shut down uncleanly as the result of a Postgres > > > crash or > > > fast shutdown of Postgres then that isn't an issue. And many users may > > > prefer > > > to bring the system up as soon a

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

On 2/28/07, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But if the system was shut down uncleanly as the result of a Postgres crash or > fast shutdown of Postgres then that isn't an issue. And many users may prefer > to bring the system up as soon as possible as long as they know any corrupt > pag

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 09:58:52AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> E.g; if user foo then pg_database_size may not be > than X? >> >> I guess the big question would be when do we check though? At each >> transaction seems like it would add significant overhead, espec

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 09:58:52AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > E.g; if user foo then pg_database_size may not be > than X? > > I guess the big question would be when do we check though? At each > transaction seems like it would add significant overhead, especially if > we had to rollback the t

[HACKERS] Possible Bug: high CPU usage for stats collector in 8.2

Darcy Buskermolen wrote: > I'm observing high CPU usage (95%) of a 2.6GHz opteron by the stats collector > on an 8.2.3 box investigation has lead me to belive that the stats file is > written a lot more often that once every 500ms the following shows this > behavior. > > PostgreSQL 8.2.3 on x

Re: [HACKERS] Compilation errors

Gregory Stark wrote: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Am Mittwoch, 28. Februar 2007 16:23 schrieb Gregory Stark: Does anyone happen to know what it is about my build environment that causes these errors? Nothing. Eve

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Tom Lane wrote: 2) I looked into the code, and from my understanding, the main part of the code which should be affected by the quotas is storage/smgr/md.c. md.c is too low level to do catalog accesses and thus too low level to know who owns what. That's probably a dumb q

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES]

Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> We should add this to the mailing list signup pages and the welcome >> pages to the lists. > Yep, good idea. Marc? For -patches and -hackers, I agree. It seems a bit legalistic and off-putting for the general lists, though.

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

Tom Lane wrote: > "Sergey E. Koposov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Per user AND per database (as Tom noted). But I dont see what's odd in >> it... It exists in Oracle, and I need quotas in the project on which I'm >> working. And I remember user requests for quotas in the mailing lists ... >

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

"Sergey E. Koposov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Per user AND per database (as Tom noted). But I dont see what's odd in > it... It exists in Oracle, and I need quotas in the project on which I'm > working. And I remember user requests for quotas in the mailing lists ... It hasn't ever made it

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

> Then you cannot run any queries that extend the size of your relations > (for example INSERT, UPDATE etc.). Unless you drop your tables or DELETE > something Interesting. Well my two cents is don't go any deeper than database. I.e; don't try and track to the individual relation. Joshua D. Drak

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Sergey E. Koposov wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Per user AND per database (as Tom noted). But I dont see what's odd in it... It exists in Oracle, and I need quotas in the project on which I'm working. And I remember user requests

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES]

Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I have added this to the developer's FAQ to clarify the situtation of > > posting a patch: > > > > PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. By posting a patch > > to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL >

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

Gregory Stark wrote: > "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I think we need to think about when these CRCs would be read and > > written. It would be written when it hits the disk, hopefully by the > > background writer, and I think after a server crash, all pages would > > have to b

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES]

Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have added this to the developer's FAQ to clarify the situtation of > posting a patch: > > PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. By posting a patch > to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL > Global Development Group the no

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

Sergey E. Koposov wrote: > On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> I could see this being useful per database, maybe. It seems like kind of >> an odd feature. > > Per user AND per database (as Tom noted). But I dont see what's odd in > it... It exists in Oracle, and I need quotas in the

Re: [HACKERS] Compilation errors

"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Am Mittwoch, 28. Februar 2007 16:23 schrieb Gregory Stark: >>> Does anyone happen to know what it is about my build environment that >>> causes these errors? > >> Nothing. Everybody gets them. > > I don't. W

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

Gregory Stark wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> LIVE FROM THE WWE, CAGE MATCH! >> >> Jonah (the Theorist) Harris versus Greg (the Brain) Stark. >> >> What is going to happen between these two brothers in arms when they >> must both prove their theory! > > Darn, I wish I

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

"Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think we need to think about when these CRCs would be read and > written. It would be written when it hits the disk, hopefully by the > background writer, and I think after a server crash, all pages would > have to be read and checked. The good new

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES]

I have added this to the developer's FAQ to clarify the situtation of posting a patch: PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. By posting a patch to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

On 2/28/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: LIVE FROM THE WWE, CAGE MATCH! Jonah (the Theorist) Harris versus Greg (the Brain) Stark. What is going to happen between these two brothers in arms when they must both prove their theory! Heh, I like it :) -- Jonah H. Harris, Software A

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > LIVE FROM THE WWE, CAGE MATCH! > > Jonah (the Theorist) Harris versus Greg (the Brain) Stark. > > What is going to happen between these two brothers in arms when they > must both prove their theory! Darn, I wish I had seen this post before I posted

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote: I could see this being useful per database, maybe. It seems like kind of an odd feature. Per user AND per database (as Tom noted). But I dont see what's odd in it... It exists in Oracle, and I need quotas in the project on which I'm working. And I

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

"Gregory Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We've already seen wal CRC checking show up at the top of profiles. > > Do you really doubt that memcpy is faster than CRC32 checking? Especially when > you're already doing memcpy anyways and the only overhead is the few unaligned > bytes at the end a

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

I think we need to think about when these CRCs would be read and written. It would be written when it hits the disk, hopefully by the background writer, and I think after a server crash, all pages would have to be read and checked. The good news is that both of these are non-critical paths. ---

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Tom Lane wrote: "Sergey E. Koposov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: 1) The main idea is to implement the per-user quota (not per tablespace for example). So, during the creation of the new user some quota can be specified, and after that the size of all the relations *owned* by

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

Sergey E. Koposov wrote: > Hello hackers, > > I was starting to think about next SOC and the project for it. And for a > long time I wanted to implement the user quotas in PG. > So, I'll try to explain my understanding of the implementation, and I'll > be happy to hear any comments, objections, or

Re: [HACKERS] SOC & user quotas

"Sergey E. Koposov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1) The main idea is to implement the per-user quota (not per tablespace > for example). So, during the creation of the new user some quota can be > specified, and after that the size of all the relations *owned* by that > user should be limited b

Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

>> Do you really doubt that memcpy is faster than CRC32 checking? >> Especially when >> you're already doing memcpy anyways and the only overhead is the few >> unaligned >> bytes at the end and the 8 one-byte copies? > > I'm saying the complexity and implementation of it is going to get you > a b

Re: [HACKERS] Compilation errors

Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Am Mittwoch, 28. Februar 2007 16:23 schrieb Gregory Stark: >> Does anyone happen to know what it is about my build environment that >> causes these errors? > Nothing. Everybody gets them. I don't. What version of flex are you guys using?

Re: [HACKERS] VACUUM and spoiling the buffer manager cache

On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 11:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > VACUUM's current behaviour is to take blocks it has touched and place > > them on the head of the freelist, allowing them to be reused. > > No, it puts them at the tail of the freelist. That's a min

  1   2   >