Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 1:49 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>> It seems this commit forgot README fix.
>>
>> http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/include/replication/walreceiver.h?r1=1.5&r2=1.6
>
> Thanks for the report!
Yep, thanks. Applied, and I also added descri
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 10:52 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Log Message:
> > ---
> > Add connection messages for streaming replication. log_connections
> > was broken for a replication connection and no messages were
> > displayed on eith
Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Personally I dislike idea some dictionary precompiler - it is next
> application for maintaining and maybe not necessary.
That's the sort of thing that can be done when first required by any
backend and the results saved in a file for other backends to mmap().
It'd probably
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not unless you'd like to solve the issues with triggers on system
>> catalogs first ...
> Urp. Not really, though I don't know what they are exactly. I didn't
> think exclusion constraints depended on triggers. UNIQUE c
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Log Message:
> ---
> Add connection messages for streaming replication. log_connections
> was broken for a replication connection and no messages were
> displayed on either standby or primary, at any debug level.
> Connection messages n
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> My first thought about a catalog representation would be to add a column
>>> to pg_auth which is a DB OID for local users or zero for global users.
>>> However, you'd pr
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 1:49 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> There's a mismatch in HEAD between README and the actual definition in
> replication/libpqwalreceiver.
>
> In README,
>
> bool walrcv_receive(int timeout, XLogRecPtr *recptr, char **buffer, int *len)
>
> but in walreceiver.h,
>
> typedef boo
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Is there a reason that recovery.conf uses true/false, while
> postgresql.conf uses on/off?
IIRC, because, in the old version, recovery.conf allowed only
true/false as a boolean value. Of course, we can change those
now.
Regards,
--
Fujii
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> My first thought about a catalog representation would be to add a column
>> to pg_auth which is a DB OID for local users or zero for global users.
>> However, you'd probably want to prevent local users and global users
>> f
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> I wonder if this is simpler now that we got rid of the flat files stuff.
>> We could validate the user once we've connected to a database and thus
>> able to poke at the local user catalog, not just the global one. I
>>
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> I wonder if this is simpler now that we got rid of the flat files stuff.
> We could validate the user once we've connected to a database and thus
> able to poke at the local user catalog, not just the global one. I
> think that was a serious roadblock.
I think it'd be a
Tom Lane escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Robert Haas escribi�:
> >> But roles aren't database-specific... they're globals.
>
> > Well, that's another longstanding request ;-) (See the
> > db_user_namespace hack)
>
> Yeah, you'd have to fix that first. The "ambitious" part of that is
>
Is there a reason that recovery.conf uses true/false, while
postgresql.conf uses on/off?
#recovery_target_inclusive = 'true' # 'true' or 'false'
or are these settings more boolean for some reason?
--
Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> I thought this year we were going to start using people's full names
> instead of the first names, for clarity. No?
OK, I will do this once Josh is done with his modifications.
--
Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB
On mån, 2010-03-22 at 19:38 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > But if we are not comfortable about being able to do that safely, I
> > would be OK with just raising an error if a concatenation is
> attempted
> > where one value contains a DTD. The impact in practice should be
> low.
> >
>
> Righ
Gokulakannan Somasundaram writes:
> I am really confused. Please keep the cool and explain me, if i am
> wrong. I could see this code in _bt_findinsertloc. There is a
> _bt_relandgetbuf, which releases lock on p1 and tries to acquire a lock on
> p2.
No, read it again. The only locks that g
Oh! yeah, i got it. Thanks
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <
gokul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > T2 : session 1 releases the lock on p1 (its waiting to acquire a ex lock
>> on
>> > p2)
>>
>> That's not what we do. See _bt_findinsertloc.
>>
>>
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Robert Haas escribió:
>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> BTW, if you wanted something less ambitious, we have a longstanding
>>> request to implement "local superuser", that is, the ability to give one
>>> role the ability to edit other roles in on
> > T2 : session 1 releases the lock on p1 (its waiting to acquire a ex lock
> on
> > p2)
>
> That's not what we do. See _bt_findinsertloc.
>
>regards, tom lane
>
I am really confused. Please keep the cool and explain me, if i am
wrong. I could see this code in _bt_f
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Gurjeet Singh
>> wrote:
>> > Is there a way to avoid this double evaluation?
>>
>> Maybe with a CTE?
>>
>> WITH x AS (...) SELECT ...
>>
>> It do
Robert Haas escribió:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > BTW, if you wanted something less ambitious, we have a longstanding
> > request to implement "local superuser", that is, the ability to give one
> > role the ability to edit other roles in one database only.
>
> But
Gokulakannan Somasundaram writes:
> Consider Time instances T1, T2, T3, T4
> T1 : session 1 holds the write lock on page p1 and completes the unique
> check on p1, p2 and p3.
> T2 : session 1 releases the lock on p1 (its waiting to acquire a ex lock on
> p2)
That's not what we do. See _bt_find
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Gurjeet Singh
> wrote:
> > Is there a way to avoid this double evaluation?
>
> Maybe with a CTE?
>
> WITH x AS (...) SELECT ...
>
> It does look like surprising behavior.
>
It was discussed on the IRC tha
> No, you don't understand how it works. All would-be inserters will hit
> the same target page to begin with, ie, the first one that the new key
> could legally be inserted on. The lock that protects against this
> problem is the lock on that page, regardless of which page the key
> actually end
Gokulakannan Somasundaram writes:
> This is fine, if the second session has to pass through the page, where the
> first session inserted the record. But as i said if the second session finds
> a free slot before hitting on the page where the first session inserted,
> then it will never hit the pag
>
> Are you talking about exclusion constraints or btree uniqueness
> constraints? This doesn't seem to be a particularly accurate
> description of the implementation of either one. The way btree
> deals with this is explained in _bt_doinsert:
>
Unique constraints
>
> * NOTE: obviously, _b
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> I don't think that the idea of turning on the jail mode via a
> session-level switch works, given the realities of connection pooling.
> Also, I do not believe that we currently have any USERSET variable which
> can be turned on but not off, so
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> I thought this year we were going to start using people's full names
> instead of the first names, for clarity. No?
+1 for that approach.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to yo
On 3/21/10 9:36 PM, Joseph Adams wrote:
> Inside of the jail definition is a series of pseudo-statements that
> indicate the space of queries the user can perform. Simply creating a
> jail does not make it go into effect. A jail is activated using
> another query, and it remains in effect for the
Bruce,
I thought this year we were going to start using people's full names
instead of the first names, for clarity. No?
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
There's a mismatch in HEAD between README and the actual definition in
replication/libpqwalreceiver.
In README,
bool walrcv_receive(int timeout, XLogRecPtr *recptr, char **buffer, int *len)
but in walreceiver.h,
typedef bool (*walrcv_receive_type) (int timeout, unsigned char *type,
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The real question is what benefit you expect to get. If the filter
> condition can't be pushed below the window functions (which AFAICS
Even on the partition key?
Right now if you define a view with a windowing + PARTITION BY clause
in it and p
Gokulakannan Somasundaram writes:
> Can you also explain how are we avoiding duplicates in this scenario?
> a) Say there are three pages(P,Q, R) full of duplicate tuples, that are
> deleted but not dead of id x(due to some long running transaction).
> b) Now Session A gets in and checks the duplic
Hitoshi Harada writes:
> I believe the changes will probably not be 2-3 lines (ie. a member
> added to Query structure, etc) if I try it. But the optimizer part is
> too complicated to me so that I am not sure, either. My idea above is
> that the similar mechanism you see in GROUP BY optimization
2010/3/23 Daniel Farina :
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>> I believe the changes will probably not be 2-3 lines (ie. a member
>> added to Query structure, etc) if I try it. But the optimizer part is
>> too complicated to me so that I am not sure, either. My idea above i
Can you also explain how are we avoiding duplicates in this scenario?
a) Say there are three pages(P,Q, R) full of duplicate tuples, that are
deleted but not dead of id x(due to some long running transaction).
b) Now Session A gets in and checks the duplicate tuples for their
liveliness with the H
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
> Hi,
>With the implementation of deferred unique constraints, we need to go
> back to the index second time to check whether the unique check is valid.
> Say a situation occurs like this
> a) the first session doing the unique check finds out that there is a un
Hi,
With the implementation of deferred unique constraints, we need to go
back to the index second time to check whether the unique check is valid.
Say a situation occurs like this
a) the first session doing the unique check finds out that there is a unique
check required second time and just ma
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Well, sudo is pretty useful, and this would be quite similar.
+1.
I guess one of the big difficulties would be to be able to match a given
random query with the list of queries we have in any Jail, given that we
put in there "generic" queries and we want to allow "spec
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 05:10, Takahiro Itagaki
wrote:
>
> Greg Smith wrote:
>
>> By the way: the pgbench.sgml that you committed looks like it passed
>> through a system that added a CR to every line in it. Probably not the
>> way you intended to commit that.
>
> Oops, fixed. Thanks.
My guess
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> I believe the changes will probably not be 2-3 lines (ie. a member
> added to Query structure, etc) if I try it. But the optimizer part is
> too complicated to me so that I am not sure, either. My idea above is
> that the similar mechanism
2010/3/23 Nicolas Barbier :
> 2010/3/23 Pavel Stehule :
>
>> 2010/3/23 Takahiro Itagaki :
>>
>>> The fundamental issue seems to be in the slow initialization of
>>> dictionaries. If so, how about adding a pre-complile tool to convert
>>> a dictionary into a binary file, and each backend simply mmap
Modification of proposal:
I think so from discussion can take some two points:
a) enhancing editing
\ef funcname, line ... edit function and move cursor on line
\ef... edit function - name and line take from
error message
b) enhancing view
\sf funcname ... show
2010/3/23 Pavel Stehule :
> 2010/3/23 Takahiro Itagaki :
>
>> The fundamental issue seems to be in the slow initialization of
>> dictionaries. If so, how about adding a pre-complile tool to convert
>> a dictionary into a binary file, and each backend simply mmap it?
>
> It means loading about 25MB
2010/3/23 Takahiro Itagaki :
>
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>> I wrote some small patch, that allow preloading of selected ispell
>> dictionary. It solve the problem with slow tsearch initialisation with
>> some language configuration.
>>
>> I afraid so this module doesn't help on MS Windows.
>
> I t
2010/3/23 Daniel Farina :
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>> If you implement that optimization, we need have kind of
>> implicit, homologous qual information. Sure, it's possible.
>
> I'm not sure precisely what you mean here. Do you predict the
> mechanism will be comp
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> If you implement that optimization, we need have kind of
> implicit, homologous qual information. Sure, it's possible.
I'm not sure precisely what you mean here. Do you predict the
mechanism will be complicated? It's been a burning itch
2010/3/21 Daniel Farina :
> In the function "subquery_is_pushdown_safe", there is an immediate
> "false" returned if the subquery has a windowing function. While that
> seems true in general, are there cases where we can push down a qual
> if it is on the partitioning key? Or do NULLs or some oth
Sorry for the delay.
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> Here's a patch I've been playing with.
Thanks! I'm reading the patch.
> The idea is that in standby mode,
> the server keeps trying to make progress in the recovery by:
>
> a) restoring files from archive
> b) rep
49 matches
Mail list logo
