Re: [HACKERS] Proposed Patch to Improve Performance of Multi-BatchHash Join for Skewed Data Sets

> -Original Message- > From: Robert Haas > Sadly, there seem to be a number of cases in the Z7 database where the > optimization makes things significantly worse (specifically, queries > 2, 3, and 7, but especially query 3). Have you investigated what is > going on there? I had thought th

Re: [HACKERS] regression test crashes at tsearch

Teodor Sigaev wrote: I think that Mr. Inoue's patch is right. why isn't it taken into consideration yet? I can't check that patch because I don't have a Windows box. But I did some investigations. As I understand, the patch prevents from calling of wcstombs/mbstowcs with C locale and I checked

Re: [HACKERS] Service not starting: Error 1053

Frank Featherlight writes: > while reading your thread two things come to mind, I have installed: > Registry Mechanic ( http://www.pctools.com/registry-mechanic ) > Tune-Up Utilities ( http://www.tune-up.com/products/tuneup-utilities ) > Any of these two might cause the problem aswell in your opin

Re: [HACKERS] Service not starting: Error 1053

Dear Tom, while reading your thread two things come to mind, I have installed: Registry Mechanic ( http://www.pctools.com/registry-mechanic ) Tune-Up Utilities ( http://www.tune-up.com/products/tuneup-utilities ) Any of these two might cause the problem aswell in your opinion? With kind regards,

Re: [HACKERS] Service not starting: Error 1053

@ Robert, I can't format this system, since it was preinstalled when I bought it and I have no drivers or hardware specs whatsoever. Or even a new legitimate Windows. It would be alot of trouble for one program to get it running? Is there no other way to find it out? @ Andrew It's Microsoft Wind

Re: [HACKERS] Service not starting: Error 1053

Robert Haas writes: > I don't really know anything about PostgreSQL on Windows, so I'm > afraid I can't give you too much help. My gut feeling from years of > experience with debugging random weird problems on various platforms > is that we need to know more about why this is happening to you and

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches

Bruce Momjian wrote: K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore) wrote: Hi, Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features that are still to be developed in the respective patches? I'am currently referring the wiki: "Todo and Claim" for NTT and for HotStandby, i see that almost all issues

[HACKERS] regress/expected/join_1.out no longer needed?

I notice that join.out is inconsistent with join_1.out, because the latter failed to get updated here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2009-01/msg00249.php The CVS history for join_1.out says that it was created in order to support some Windows-specific behavior. Since none of the

Re: [HACKERS] V4 of PITR performance improvement for 8.4

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Gregory Stark wrote: > Koichi Suzuki writes: > >> Please find enclosed 2nd patch of pg_readahead which include a patch >> to bufer manager to skip prefetch of pages already in shared buffer. > > I'm a bit confused by this comment. PrefetchBuffer already checks if

Re: [HACKERS] Service not starting: Error 1053

Frank Featherlight wrote: > > the Windows version I use is Windows XP with SP3 as mentioned in the > original thread. > XP Pro or XP HE? 32-bit or 64-bit? cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.pos

Re: [HACKERS] Service not starting: Error 1053

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Frank Featherlight wrote: > Hey Robert, > > thanks for replying, > the package you are referring to I already used (pgInstaller → Top → binary > → v8.3.6 → win32 → postgresql-8.3.6-2.zip) > or do you mean the One click installer? Oh, OK. I had gotten the impress

Re: [HACKERS] Proposed Patch to Improve Performance of Multi-BatchHash Join for Skewed Data Sets

> Joshua sent us some preliminary data with this query and others and indicated > that we could post it.  He wanted time to clean it up > and re-run some experiments, but the data is generally good and the algorithm > performs as expected.  I have attached this data to the > post.  Note that the

Re: [HACKERS] Service not starting: Error 1053

Hey Robert, thanks for replying, the package you are referring to I already used (pgInstaller → Top→ binary → v8.3.6→ win32 → postgresql-8.3.6-2.zip

Re: [HACKERS] Service not starting: Error 1053

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Frank Featherlight wrote: > Can anyone help please guys? > > I really need this program to work; it could save me alot of money. > > With kind regards, Frank. > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Richard Huxton wrote: >> >> Frank Featherlight wrote: >> > Hey guys

Re: [HACKERS] Service not starting: Error 1053

Can anyone help please guys? I really need this program to work; it could save me alot of money. With kind regards, Frank. On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Richard Huxton wrote: > Frank Featherlight wrote: > > Hey guys, > > > > I had two running threads here: > > > > http://archives.postgresq

Re: [HACKERS] Hot standby, recovery procs

On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 22:29 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Oh, right... But we have the same problem with the subtransactions, > don't we? This block: > > > /* > > * If our state information is later for this proc, then > > * overwrite it. It's possibl

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches

On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 16:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > I didn't think I had proposed any such thing, although maybe I'm just > not remembering. I'm pretty confused as to what the current thread is > all about. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-01/msg00978.php I don't think any

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches

Hi, On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > It seems to me that in previous discussions of Streaming Replication, > Heikki put forward the proposition that the standby server should be > able to connect to the primary and stream not only newly-generated WAL > but also, if necessary,

[HACKERS] FlattenedSubLink is a crock, it's going away

[ still working on the planner issues exposed by Kevin Grittner's complaint ] I've concluded that my introduction of FlattenedSubLink as a transient representation for flattened EXISTS/IN clauses was a Bad Idea. The core problem is that it messes up the delicate order of operations in deconstruct

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches

On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 18:48 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need. > > I am against removing an existing capability that is important to some > users. We shouldn't need to debate the exact percentage of us

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 13:53 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> Simon Riggs wrote: >> > On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >> Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need. >> > I am against removing an existing capability that is

Re: [HACKERS] GIN fast insert

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> On the other hand, Teodor showed a typical use case and a very >> substantial performance gain: > > Yeah.  Whatever we do here is a tradeoff (and whether Robert likes it > or not, reliability and code maintainability weigh heavily in the > tradeo

Re: [HACKERS] Hot standby, recovery procs

On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 21:59 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > I think if I had not made those into procs you would have said that they > > are so similar it would aid code readability to have them be the same. > > And in fact I suggested earlier that we get rid of the unobserved xids > array

Re: [HACKERS] Hot standby, recovery procs

Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 21:59 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: We only need the lsn atrribute because we when we take the snapshot of running xids, we don't write it to the WAL immediately, and a new transaction might begin after that. If we close that gap in the master, we d

Re: [HACKERS] Hot standby, recovery procs

On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 21:59 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > We only need the lsn atrribute because we when we take the snapshot > of > running xids, we don't write it to the WAL immediately, and a new > transaction might begin after that. If we close that gap in the > master, > we don't need

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches

Hi, On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:08 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > So far, everything has been couched in terms of remove the way it is now > and put in its place something "better". Heikki and Josh have said that > or similar, as has Robert Haas on another thread, and Fujii-san > specifically said "get r

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches

On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 13:53 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > > >> Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need. > >> > > > > I am against removing an existing capability that is important to some > > users.

Re: [HACKERS] Hot standby, recovery procs

Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:40 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: (back to reviewing the main hot standby patch at last) Why do we need recovery procs? AFAICS the only fields that we use are xid and the subxid cache. Now that we also have the unobserved xids array, why don't we us

Re: [HACKERS] GIN fast insert

Jeff Davis writes: > On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 00:18 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> It only took me about 5 minutes to come up with a test case against CVS >> HEAD where disabling index scans resulted in a significant dropoff in >> performance. Here it is: > On the other hand, Teodor showed a typical

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches

On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 13:25 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Right. I was made a bit nervous by Joshua's comments, but somewhat > reassured by his reference back to Heikki's comments. If we can make > common cases simple to implement, that's great, as long as we don't > lose functionality needed t

Re: [HACKERS] Hadoop backend?

With a distributed data store, the data would become a logical object - no adding or removal of machines would affect the data. This is an ideal that would remove a tremendous maintenance burden from many sites well, at least the one's I have worked at as far as I can see. Two things: 1)

Re: [HACKERS] GIN fast insert

On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 00:18 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > It only took me about 5 minutes to come up with a test case against CVS > HEAD where disabling index scans resulted in a significant dropoff in > performance. Here it is: On the other hand, Teodor showed a typical use case and a very subs

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches

Hi, On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Presumably we'll keep the capability to restore from a backup and restore > from WAL archive as well, when those are available. Keeping that capability > shouldn't add many lines of code. Yes, I assume that only missing WAL files (

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches

>>> Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: >> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >>> Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need. >> >> I am against removing an existing capability that is important to >> some users. We shouldn't need to debate the exact percentage of >

Re: [HACKERS] Hot standby, recovery procs

On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:40 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > (back to reviewing the main hot standby patch at last) > > Why do we need recovery procs? AFAICS the only fields that we use are > xid and the subxid cache. Now that we also have the unobserved xids > array, why don't we use it to tra

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches

Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need. I am against removing an existing capability that is important to some users. We shouldn't need to debate the exact percentage of users that would be affected, or how t

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches

On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need. I am against removing an existing capability that is important to some users. We shouldn't need to debate the exact percentage of users that would be affected, or how to count them. -- Simon Rig

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches

On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 17:36 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 00:51 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore) > > wrote: > > > Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features that are > > > still to be develop

Re: [HACKERS] regression test crashes at tsearch

I think that Mr. Inoue's patch is right. why isn't it taken into consideration yet? I can't check that patch because I don't have a Windows box. But I did some investigations. As I understand, the patch prevents from calling of wcstombs/mbstowcs with C locale and I checked trace for that. But

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches

Simon Riggs wrote: On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 00:51 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore) wrote: Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features that are still to be developed in the respective patches? I'am currently referring

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches

On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 00:51 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore) > wrote: > > Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features that are > > still to be developed in the respective patches? > > > > I'am currently referring th

Re: [HACKERS] Sync replication tests

Hi, On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:24 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore) wrote: > Steps to re-produce the sync replication bug: > > - Setup the Primary server and standby server > - Don't execute any transactions on the Primary server > - Initiate a switchover by creating a finish.trigger on the Sta

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches

Hi, On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore) wrote: > Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features that are still > to be developed in the respective patches? > > I'am currently referring the wiki: "Todo and Claim" for NTT and for > HotStandby, i see t

Re: [HACKERS] question about the design consideration for system catalogs

"Tom Lane" wrotes: > "Tao Ma" writes: >> But if I wanna check the parameter informations, it's a little hard to >> read. If I wanna write a program to re-construct the procedure source >> code, it is not convenience to access the parameter informations from >> the front-end. What cons are there I

Re: [HACKERS] GIN fast insert

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On my system this takes about 45 ms to execute with default settings >> and about 90 ms to execute with index scan disabled. > > [ shrug... ]  That's well within my threshold of pain for this. > In any case, it might be po

Re: [HACKERS] GIN fast insert

Robert Haas writes: > On my system this takes about 45 ms to execute with default settings > and about 90 ms to execute with index scan disabled. [ shrug... ] That's well within my threshold of pain for this. In any case, it might be possible to buy some/all of that back with minor optimization

Re: [HACKERS] question about the design consideration for system catalogs

"Tao Ma" writes: > But if I wanna check the parameter informations, it's a little hard to > read. If I wanna write a program to re-construct the procedure source > code, it is not convenience to access the parameter informations from > the front-end. What cons are there If store the procedure and

Re: [HACKERS] parallel restore

I wrote: Once we have that the custom format code should fail on this no matter how the dump was made, and parallel restore should work with tar format once we add code to it to seek for data members. s/should fail/should not fail/ :-) cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing

Re: [HACKERS] parallel restore

I wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: Tom Lane wrote: There is an unfinished TODO item here: we really ought to make it work for tar-format archives. That's probably not hugely difficult, but I didn't look into it, and don't think we should hold up applying the existing p

Re: [HACKERS] Significance of the magic number of btree pages..?

Anil Kumar wrote: Hi to All, Iam new to the group and to postgresql. Currently Iam trying to understand how does the planner work by using gdb. During the execution of a plan I observed a variable "BTREE_MAGIC" which is defined 0x053162 and called, 'the magic number of btree pages'. I couldnt und

[HACKERS] Significance of the magic number of btree pages..?

Hi to All, Iam new to the group and to postgresql. Currently Iam trying to understand how does the planner work by using gdb. During the execution of a plan I observed a variable "BTREE_MAGIC" which is defined 0x053162 and called, 'the magic number of btree pages'. I couldnt understand the conce

Re: [HACKERS] Adding a field in Path Structure and Plan Structure

Zichen Xu escreveu: > Also, I have modified the funscopy.c and every related place where the ^ This file doesn't exist on PostgreSQL source code. Out of curiosity, what another cost metric is for? -- Euler Taveira de Oliveira http://www.timbira.com/ -- Sent

Re: [HACKERS] Hadoop backend?

Tom Lane wrote: It's interesting to speculate about where we could draw an abstraction boundary that would be more useful. I don't think the MySQL guys got it right either... The supposed smgr abstraction of PostgreSQL, which tells more or less how to get a byte to the disk, is quite far away

Re: [HACKERS] Hadoop backend?

why not just stream it in via set-returning functions and make sure that we can mark a set returning function as "STREAMABLE" or so (to prevent joins, whatever). is it the easiest way to get it right and it helps in many other cases. i think that the storage manager is definitely the wrong pla

Re: [HACKERS] Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches

K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore) wrote: > Hi, > > Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features > that are still to be developed in the respective patches? > > I'am currently referring the wiki: "Todo and Claim" for NTT and > for HotStandby, i see that almost all issues are close

Re: [HACKERS] A single escape required for log_filename

Robert Haas wrote: Suggested patch attached. I have committed your patch. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] SQL/MED dummy vs postgresql wrapper

Martin Pihlak wrote: How about extending the syntax by adding validator function(s) instead (similar to CREATE LANGUAGE)? For instance for postgresql wrapper we might want to check that a password is provided for a user mapping. The default validator for postgres wrapper would be supplied, but n

Re: [HACKERS] Hadoop backend?

> > > As far as I can tell, the PG storage manager API is at the wrong level > of abstraction for pretty much everything. These days, everything we do > is atop the Unix filesystem API, and anything that smgr might have been > Is there a complete list of filesystem API calls somewhere that I can

[HACKERS] Sync replication tests

Hi, Steps to re-produce the sync replication bug: - Setup the Primary server and standby server - Don't execute any transactions on the Primary server - Initiate a switchover by creating a finish.trigger on the Standby server - The standby server (the startup process) will terminate with SIGABR

[HACKERS] Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1608)

The series of SE-PostgreSQL patches for v8.4 were updated: [1/5] http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/sepgsql-core-8.4devel-r1608.patch [2/5] http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/sepgsql-utils-8.4devel-r1608.patch [3/5] http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/sepgsql-policy-8.4devel-r1608.patch [4/5] ht

[HACKERS] Hot standby, recovery procs

(back to reviewing the main hot standby patch at last) Why do we need recovery procs? AFAICS the only fields that we use are xid and the subxid cache. Now that we also have the unobserved xids array, why don't we use it to track all transactions in the master, not just the unobserved ones. --