2010/1/17 Tom Lane :
> Hitoshi Harada writes:
>> ... I tried to change not to canonicalize the
>> pathkeys in make_pathkeys_window() in such cases and succeeded then
>> passed all regression tests.
>
> That's broken, whether it passes regression tests or not. Not
> canonicalizing will mean that y
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Smith writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Actually, that brings up a more general question: what's with the
>>> enthusiasm for clearing statistics *at all*?
>
>> ... Right now, you're still carrying around
>> the history of the bad period forever
> I'd happily write a patch to handle all that if I thought it would be
> accepted. I fear that the whole approach will be considered a bit too
> hackish and get rejected on that basis though. Not really sure of a
> "right" way to handle this though. Anything better is going to be more
> compli
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Takahiro Itagaki
wrote:
> Here is a revised partitioning syntax patch. It implements only syntax and
> on-disk structure mentioned below:
> Table Partitioning#Syntax
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Table_partitioning#Syntax
> Table Partitioning#On-disk
Hitoshi Harada writes:
> ... I tried to change not to canonicalize the
> pathkeys in make_pathkeys_window() in such cases and succeeded then
> passed all regression tests.
That's broken, whether it passes regression tests or not. Not
canonicalizing will mean that you fail to recognize equality t
2010/1/17 Erik Rijkers :
> On Sat, January 16, 2010 09:29, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>> 2010/1/16 Erik Rijkers :
>>>
Thanks for the review. I've found another crash today and attached is
fixed version. The case is:
SELECT four, sum(ten) over (PARTITION BY four ORDER BY four RANGE 1
> Leonardo F 01/07/10 6:03 AM wrote:
> attached a patch
Leonardo,
This patch no longer applies. Could you rebase it?
Thanks,
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql
On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 18:20 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 11:37 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Simon Riggs writes:
> > > I'm wondering if it wouldn't just be easier to put in a plugin for
> > > recovery conflict handling, so the user can decide what to do
> > > themselves. That see
On Sat, January 16, 2010 09:29, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> 2010/1/16 Erik Rijkers :
>>
>>> Thanks for the review. I've found another crash today and attached is
>>> fixed version. The case is:
>>>
>>> SELECT four, sum(ten) over (PARTITION BY four ORDER BY four RANGE 1
>>> PRECEDING) FROM tenk1 WHERE u
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I have yet to fully review the code but on a quick glance it looks reasonable.
On further review, it looks less reasonable. :-(
The new PQescapeIdentConn function is basically a cut-up version of
PQescapeStringInternal, which seems like a re
On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 11:37 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
> > I'm wondering if it wouldn't just be easier to put in a plugin for
> > recovery conflict handling, so the user can decide what to do
> > themselves. That seems like a better plan than chewing through these
> > issues now.
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 20:50 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> That would change the meaning of max_standby_delay. Currently, it's the
> delay between *generating* and applying a WAL record, your proposal
> would change it to mean delay between receiving and applying it. That
> seems a lot less us
Kevin Grittner wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Kevin Grittner wrote:
Right, we don't want to give the monitoring software an OS login
for the database servers, for security reasons.
depending on what you exactly mean by that I do have to wonder how
you monitor more complex stuff (or stuf
Magnus Hagander writes:
> I was going to test the walreceiver stuff, but it turns out that basic
> archive recovery appears to be broken in HEAD. From what I can tell,
> it's related to Hot Standby code.
I've committed a fix that makes it work in EXEC_BACKEND case on Unix.
Can't tell if there are
Greg Smith wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Another popular question is "how far behind real-time is the archiver
process?" You can do this right now by duplicating the same xlog
file name scanning and sorting that the archiver does in your own
code, looking for .ready files. It would be
while cleaning up my $HOME I cam across an old hack I once used to find
compiler warnings in the buildfarm logs.
The following contains the output of running that script across the
current buildfarm members reporting on -HEAD:
http://www.kaltenbrunner.cc/files/output_buildfarm_16_01_2010.html
Simon Riggs writes:
> I'm wondering if it wouldn't just be easier to put in a plugin for
> recovery conflict handling, so the user can decide what to do
> themselves. That seems like a better plan than chewing through these
> issues now.
Making it a plugin doesn't solve anything. This is not th
On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 14:08 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
> > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 20:50 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Yes, it does. And I know you're thinking along those lines because we
> > are concurrently discussing how to handle re-connection after updates.
>
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Not knowing that code very well at this time, but is this perhaps a
>> structure not being properly initialized in EXEC_BACKEND case?
> It looks like KnownAssignedXidsHash is not initialized. That's
> supposed to h
Magnus Hagander writes:
> 2010/1/2 Tom Lane :
>> If those are a problem then presumably syslogger_parseArgs needs work
>> too ... and I rather wonder where the value it's reading comes from.
> Well, it doesn't generate a warning.. It only did that when the cast
> was incorrect. Should we add it
Markus Wanner wrote:
Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> args=['psql', '-A', '--pset=pager=off',
> That looks like a correct fix for psql, yes.
> Other processes might be confused by (or at least act differently
> with) a PAGER env variable, so that still needs to be cleared in
> general.
Markus Wanner wrote:
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I differentiate tests and test suites. Tests mainly have a run
> method, while test suites have setUp and tearDown ones.
I hadn't caught on to that distinction yet. That should help.
>> "uses" means that the referenced task has complimentary setU
Dimitri Fontaine escreveu:
> It should be possible to be in contrib and installed by default, even
>
And it could be uninstall too. Let's not do it for core functionalities.
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
http://www.timbira.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgres
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Not knowing that code very well at this time, but is this perhaps a
> structure not being properly initialized in EXEC_BACKEND case?
It looks like KnownAssignedXidsHash is not initialized. That's
supposed to happen when CreateSharedProcAr
Il 16/01/2010 11:48, Dimitri Fontaine ha scritto:
Matteo Beccati writes:
Anyway, I've made further changes and I would say that at this point the PoC
is feature complete. There surely are still some rough edges and a few
things to clean up, but I'd like to get your feedback once again:
http://
I was going to test the walreceiver stuff, but it turns out that basic
archive recovery appears to be broken in HEAD. From what I can tell,
it's related to Hot Standby code.
I get this (this is all on win32 - I got the same on win64, but moved
back to win32 to make sure it's not an issue with the w
Simon Riggs writes:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 20:50 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Yes, it does. And I know you're thinking along those lines because we
> are concurrently discussing how to handle re-connection after updates.
With my State Machine proposal, we could only apply max_standby_delay
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> The module doesn't need to touch backend internals much at all, no
> tinkering with shared memory for example, so I would feel much better
> about moving that out of src/backend. Not sure where, though; it's not
> an executable, so src/bin is hardly the right place, bu
First, thanks for the review. Detailed comments/questions below.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 12:27, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I am not very happy with ATPrepSetOptions(). I basically just
>> retained the logic from ATPrepSetDistinct(), but it do
2010/1/16 Hitoshi Harada :
> 2010/1/16 Erik Rijkers :
>>
>>> Thanks for the review. I've found another crash today and attached is
>>> fixed version. The case is:
>>>
>>> SELECT four, sum(ten) over (PARTITION BY four ORDER BY four RANGE 1
>>> PRECEDING) FROM tenk1 WHERE unique1 < 10;
>>>
>>
>> Hi,
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 13:16 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > While unlikely to cause issues two new LWLockAcquire calls use the wrong
> > locking mode.
> > Patch attached.
>
> Does it make sense to add this to the 2010-01 CommitFest so we don't
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Another option would be to distribute both 8.4 and 8.5 shared objects,
> but that would require access to two source trees to perform the
> compile, which seems very error-prone.
That's what any extension author and/or packager is faced with. Using
debian, it's easy enough
Markus Wanner wrote:
>> I do want to expand the tests quite a bit -- do I work them all into
>> this same file, or how would I proceed? I think I'll need about 20
>> more tests, but I don't want to get in the way of your work on the
>> framework which runs them.
>
> Well, first of all, another pi
Matteo Beccati writes:
> Anyway, I've made further changes and I would say that at this point the PoC
> is feature complete. There surely are still some rough edges and a few
> things to clean up, but I'd like to get your feedback once again:
>
> http://archives.beccati.org
I've been clicking aro
Thanks for stating it this way, it really helps figuring out what is it
we're talking about!
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> The states with my suggested ReadRecord/FetchRecord refactoring, the
> code I have in the replication-xlogrefactor branch in my git repo,
> are:
They look like you're trying
This is not my understanding of ISO/IEC 9075-11:2003(E), page 57 :
You're right, it's a bug, but it's already fixed in 8.5. :-)
Great! :-)
Thanks,
--
Fabien.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.o
2010/1/16 Erik Rijkers :
>
>> Thanks for the review. I've found another crash today and attached is
>> fixed version. The case is:
>>
>> SELECT four, sum(ten) over (PARTITION BY four ORDER BY four RANGE 1
>> PRECEDING) FROM tenk1 WHERE unique1 < 10;
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> The patch (more_frame_options.2010
37 matches
Mail list logo
