Re: [HACKERS] sinval synchronization considered harmful

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > No new ideas come to mind, here. OK, I have a new idea. :-) 1. Add a new flag to each procState called something like "timeToPayAttention". 2. Each call to SIGetDataEntries() iterates over all the ProcStates whose index is < lastBackend and s

Re: [HACKERS] sinval synchronization considered harmful

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> It wouldn't, although it might be bad in the case where there are lots >> of temp tables being created and dropped. > > Do temp tables cause relcache invalidations? > > That seems like som

Re: [HACKERS] sinval synchronization considered harmful

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > You might be right, but I think we have little knowledge of how some > memory barrier code you haven't written yet effects performance on > various architectures. > > A spinlock per backend would cache very nicely, now you mention it. So > my m

Re: [HACKERS] psql: bogus descriptions displayed by \d+

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: > I think this is basically the right approach but I found what you did > here a bit wordy, so I simplified it, committed it, and back-patched > to 9.0 with suitable adjustment.  Hopefu

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning WAS: Check constraints on partition parents only?

Jim, > That's why I'd be opposed to any partitioning scheme that removed the ability > to have different fields in different children. We've found that ability to > be very useful. Likewise, I think we need to have intelligent plans involving > a parent table that's either completely empty or m

Re: [HACKERS] storing TZ along timestamps

On Jul 26, 2011, at 5:56 PM, Christopher Browne wrote: >> I'm assuming that the issue here is that multiple backends could be >> connected to the same database, and we don't want all of them to try to >> actually do the updates, only the first one that discovers the change. If >> that's the prob

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on partition parents only?

On Jul 25, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Jerry Sievers wrote: > That our version of partitioning can be overloaded like this though I > think adds power. A bit of which we lost adding the restrictgion. That's why I'd be opposed to any partitioning scheme that removed the ability to have different fields in

Re: [HACKERS] storing TZ along timestamps

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On Jul 25, 2011, at 6:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: >>> Hrm, don't we only pull in ZIC info on a reload? Or do we actually refer to >>> it dynamically all the time? Perhaps we can enforce that we

Re: [HACKERS] storing TZ along timestamps

On Jul 25, 2011, at 6:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: >> Hrm, don't we only pull in ZIC info on a reload? Or do we actually refer to >> it dynamically all the time? Perhaps we can enforce that we'll only >> recognize new TZ info as part of a config r

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add missing newlines at end of error messages

This seems like a mechanical check. Should it be part of what gets checked when people push? Cheers, David. On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 08:30:16PM +, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Add missing newlines at end of error messages > > Branch > -- > master > > Details > --- > http://git.postgresq

Re: [HACKERS] sinval synchronization considered harmful

Noah Misch writes: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 05:05:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Dirty cache line, maybe not, but what if the assembly code commands the >> CPU to load those variables into CPU registers before doing the >> comparison? If they're loaded with maxMsgNum coming in last (or at >> lea

Re: [HACKERS] sinval synchronization considered harmful

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 05:05:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch writes: > > That's the theoretical risk I wished to illustrate. Though this appears > > possible on an abstract x86_64 system, I think it's unrealistic to suppose > > that > > a dirty cache line could persist *throughout* the

Re: [HACKERS] Pull up aggregate sublink (was: Parameterized aggregate subquery (was: Pull up aggregate subquery))

Yeb Havinga writes: > A few days ago I read Tomas Vondra's blog post about dss tpc-h queries > on PostgreSQL at > http://fuzzy.cz/en/articles/dss-tpc-h-benchmark-with-postgresql/ - in > which he showed how to manually pull up a dss subquery to get a large > speed up. Initially I thought: cool,

Re: [HACKERS] sinval synchronization considered harmful

Noah Misch writes: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 03:40:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> After some further reflection I believe this patch actually is pretty >> safe, although Noah's explanation of why seems a bit confused. > Here's the way it can fail: > 1. Backend enters SIGetDataEntries() with main

Re: [HACKERS] isolation test deadlocking on buildfarm member coypu

After committing Noah's patch to fix the isolation tests, there have been two more failures in Rémi's machines pika and coypu: http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=pika&dt=2011-07-24%2006%3A45%3A45 http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=coypu&dt=2011-07-23%2021%3A

[HACKERS] XMLATTRIBUTES vs. values of type XML

Hi While reviewing the (now applied) XPATH escaping patches, Radoslaw found one case where the previous failure of XPATH to escape its return value was offset by XMLATTRIBUTES insistence to escape all input values, even if they're already of type XML. To wit, if you do SELECT XMLELEMENT(NAME "

Re: [HACKERS] sinval synchronization considered harmful

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 01:36:26PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 03:54:03PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > >> > This is attractive, and I don't see any problems with i

Re: [HACKERS] sinval synchronization considered harmful

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 03:40:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch writes: > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:37:27PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> I think I have a simpler idea, though: > >> before acquiring any locks, just have SIGetDataEntries() do this: > >> > >> + if (stateP->nextMsgN

Re: [HACKERS] Another issue with invalid XML values

Florian Pflug writes: > Patch attached. Will check and apply this. > I've pondered whether to add a check to configure which verifies that > the headers match the libxml version exactly at compile time. In the end, > I didn't do that, for two reasons. First, there isn't anything wrong with > usi

Re: [HACKERS] sinval synchronization considered harmful

Noah Misch writes: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:37:27PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> I think I have a simpler idea, though: >> before acquiring any locks, just have SIGetDataEntries() do this: >> >> + if (stateP->nextMsgNum == segP->maxMsgNum && !stateP->resetState) >> + retur

Re: [HACKERS] sinval synchronization considered harmful

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Robert Haas wrote: * Can we partition the sinval lock, so we have multiple copies? That increases the task for those who trigger an invalidation, but will relieve the pressure for most readers. >>> >>> Not sure there's a way to meaningfully partitio

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Fast GiST index build

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Heikki Linnakangas < heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > That was a quite off-the-cuff remark, so I took the patch and culled out > loaded-tree bookkeeping. A lot of other changes fell off from that, so it > took me quite some time to get it working again

[HACKERS] Pull up aggregate sublink (was: Parameterized aggregate subquery (was: Pull up aggregate subquery))

On 2011-07-22 17:35, Hitoshi Harada wrote: 2011/7/23 Yeb Havinga: Works like a charm :-). However, now there is always a copyObject of a subquery even when the subquery is not safe for qual pushdown. The problem with the previous issafe was that it was only assigned for rel->baserestrictinfo !=

Re: [HACKERS] sinval synchronization considered harmful

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > It wouldn't, although it might be bad in the case where there are lots > of temp tables being created and dropped. Do temp tables cause relcache invalidations? That seems like something we'd want to change in itself. --  Simon Riggs   

Re: [HACKERS] sinval synchronization considered harmful

Simon Riggs writes: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Signals are already in use for special cases (queue is full), and I >> think going through the kernel to achieve much more will lower >> performance significantly. > If there are no invalidations, there would be no

Re: [HACKERS] sinval synchronization considered harmful

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Excerpts from Simon Riggs's message of mar jul 26 14:11:19 -0400 2011: >> >>> Let me ask a few questions to stimulate a different solution >>> >>> * Can we do this using an active tec

Re: [HACKERS] sinval synchronization considered harmful

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Excerpts from Simon Riggs's message of mar jul 26 14:11:19 -0400 2011: > >> Let me ask a few questions to stimulate a different solution >> >> * Can we do this using an active technique (e.g. signals) rather than >> a passive one (reading a

Re: [HACKERS] sinval synchronization considered harmful

Excerpts from Simon Riggs's message of mar jul 26 14:11:19 -0400 2011: > Let me ask a few questions to stimulate a different solution > > * Can we do this using an active technique (e.g. signals) rather than > a passive one (reading a counter?) Signals are already in use for special cases (queue

Re: [HACKERS] Another issue with invalid XML values

On Jul26, 2011, at 17:07 , Tom Lane wrote: > Florian Pflug writes: >> What about the suggested upgrade of the elog(ERROR) in xml_errorHandler >> to elog(FATAL)? Shall I do that too, or leave it for now? > > No objection here --- I had considered writing it that way myself. > I refrained for fear

Re: [HACKERS] sinval synchronization considered harmful

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Now, as you say, it seems really, really > difficult to hit that in practice, but I don't see a way of getting > rid of the theoretical possibility without either (1) a spinlock or > (2) a fence.  (Of course, on x86, the fence could be optimiz

Re: [HACKERS] write scalability

On 07/26/2011 12:33 PM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: I think what I am suggesting is that the default pgbench test setup would probably not give you a good scalability as number of clients are increased and one reason could be the contention in the small table. So it might be a good idea to get rid of t

Re: [HACKERS] sinval synchronization considered harmful

Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar jul 26 13:43:08 -0400 2011: > Uh, yes. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen people hit > one-instruction-wide race condition windows, SIGSEGV crash based on > accessing only one byte past the valid data structure, etc etc. I think you need a be

Re: [HACKERS] problem with compiling beta3 on mingw32+WinXP

After reinstalling mingw is ok. 2011/7/25, pasman pasmański : > After googling i found that mingw's gcc works with 64 bit integers. > But printf is incompatible :( . Possible workaround: include > inttypes.h , define macros and convert printf strings: > > printf("%" LL,(long long)100) > >

Re: [HACKERS] sinval synchronization considered harmful

Robert Haas writes: > On further reflection, I don't see that this helps: it just moves the > problem around. With resetState as a separate variable, nextMsgNum is > never changed by anyone other than the owner, so we can never have a > stale load. But if we overload nextMsgNum to also indicate

Re: [HACKERS] sinval synchronization considered harmful

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 03:54:03PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >> > This is attractive, and I don't see any problems with it.  (In theory, you >> > could >> > hit a case where the load of res

Re: [HACKERS] write scalability

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:40M, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Greg Smith wrote: >>> On 07/25/2011 04:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote: I did 5-minute pgbench runs with unlogged tables and with permanent tabl

Re: [HACKERS] write scalability

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > > So many transactions trying to update a small set of rows in a table. > Is that what we really want to measure ? My thinking is that we might > see different result if they are updating different parts of the table > and the transaction

Re: [HACKERS] write scalability

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Pavan Deolasee > wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Greg Smith wrote: On 07/25/2011 04:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > I did 5-min

Re: [HACKERS] vacuumlo patch

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:18:31PM -0400, Timothy D. F. Lewis wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Tim wrote: > > > Updated the patch to also apply when the no-action flag is enabled. > > > > You may want to read this: > > > > http:/

Re: [HACKERS] write scalability

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Greg Smith wrote: >>> On 07/25/2011 04:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote: I did 5-minute pgbench runs with unlogged tables and with permanent t

Re: [HACKERS] Another issue with invalid XML values

On Jul26, 2011, at 18:04 , Noah Misch wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 02:09:13PM +0200, Florian Pflug wrote: >> On Jul26, 2011, at 01:57 , Noah Misch wrote: >>> We could rearrange things so the xml2-config -L >>> flags (or lack thereof) take priority over a --with-libraries directory for >>> the p

Re: [HACKERS] vacuumlo patch

I'm not sure what David did for me so as per Roberts suggestion I have addedthis patch to the commit fest. I'm hoping I have not put this patch in more than one workflow

Re: [HACKERS] Another issue with invalid XML values

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 02:09:13PM +0200, Florian Pflug wrote: > On Jul26, 2011, at 01:57 , Noah Misch wrote: > > We could rearrange things so the xml2-config -L > > flags (or lack thereof) take priority over a --with-libraries directory for > > the purpose of finding libxml2. > > Hm, how would we

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on partition parents only?

Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 07/25/2011 10:31 PM, Jerry Sievers wrote: >> Hackers; >> >> I just noticed that somewhere between 8.2 and 8.4, an exception is >> raised trying to alter table ONLY some_partition_parent ADD CHECK >> (foo). >> > > > 8.4 had this change: > >* > > Force c

[HACKERS] How to use CreateFunctionStmt's RETURN TABLE?

Hello Guys, Lately, I saw this syntax in ./src/backend/parser/Gray.y as following! CreateFunctionStmt: CREATE opt_or_replace FUNCTION func_name func_args_with_defaults RETURNS func_return createfunc_opt_list opt_definition

Re: [HACKERS] vacuumlo patch

Hi Aron, Thanks for the input. The "small change" you suggest would change the behavior of the patch which I would prefer not to do as I have reasons for the previous behavior. Because you gave no reasons and "stop after removing LIMIT LOs" was not changed to "stop after attempting to remove LIMIT

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on partition parents only?

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:51:58AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Nikhil Sontakke > > wrote: > >> Hmmm, but then it does open up the possibility of naive users shooting > >> themselves in the foot. It can be easy to conjure up a > >> parent-only-

Re: [HACKERS] write scalability

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Greg Smith wrote: >> On 07/25/2011 04:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> >>> I did 5-minute pgbench runs with unlogged tables and with permanent >>> tables, restarting the database server and reinitializing the tab

Re: [HACKERS] Another issue with invalid XML values

Tom Lane writes: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I don't think so.  It would just be another headache for packagers --- >>> in Red Hat distros, at least, packages are explicitly forbidden from >>> containing any rpath settings. >> So what do they do

Re: [HACKERS] vacuumlo patch

> Excerpts from Aron's message of mar jul 26 04:18:55 -0400 2011: >> Here's another small change to the patch, it works fine for me and it quite >> saved my day. >> >> I try to submit the patch by email. > > There's a problem with this patch: long lines are being wrapped by > your email client, w

Re: [HACKERS] vacuumlo patch

Hi Tim, I have to correct my previous answer, my change does not alter the behavior of your patch significantly. > The difference: > In your version of the patch vacuumlo will stop after N lo_unlink(OID) > attempts. > The previous behavior of the patch is that vacuumlo will stop after N > succ

Re: [HACKERS] vacuumlo patch

Hi Tim, you correctly assumed I was just trying to clean up the code. There was no reason to change the behavior, so please ignore my change to the patch. Aron On 26.07.2011, at 15:44, Tim Lewis wrote: > Hi Aron, > > Thanks for the input. The "small change" you suggest would change the > be

Re: [HACKERS] Another issue with invalid XML values

Florian Pflug writes: > What about the suggested upgrade of the elog(ERROR) in xml_errorHandler > to elog(FATAL)? Shall I do that too, or leave it for now? No objection here --- I had considered writing it that way myself. I refrained for fear of making a bad situation even worse, but if other pe

Re: [HACKERS] Another issue with invalid XML values

Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I don't think so.  It would just be another headache for packagers --- >> in Red Hat distros, at least, packages are explicitly forbidden from >> containing any rpath settings. > So what do they do about Perl and Python?

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on partition parents only?

Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Nikhil Sontakke > wrote: >> Hmmm, but then it does open up the possibility of naive users shooting >> themselves in the foot. It can be easy to conjure up a >> parent-only-constraint that does not gel too well with its children. And >> that's

Re: [HACKERS] Another issue with invalid XML values

On Jul26, 2011, at 16:22 , Tom Lane wrote: > Florian Pflug writes: >> On further reflection, instead of checking whether we can restore the error >> handler in pg_xml_init_library(), we could simply upgrade the elog(WARNING) >> in pg_xml_done() to ereport(ERROR), and include a hint that explains t

Re: [HACKERS] vacuumlo patch

Excerpts from Aron's message of mar jul 26 04:18:55 -0400 2011: > Here's another small change to the patch, it works fine for me and it quite > saved my day. > > I try to submit the patch by email. There's a problem with this patch: long lines are being wrapped by your email client, which makes i

Re: [HACKERS] Another issue with invalid XML values

Florian Pflug writes: > On further reflection, instead of checking whether we can restore the error > handler in pg_xml_init_library(), we could simply upgrade the elog(WARNING) > in pg_xml_done() to ereport(ERROR), and include a hint that explains the > probably cause. > The upside being that we

Re: [HACKERS] Another issue with invalid XML values

On Jul26, 2011, at 15:52 , Tom Lane wrote: > Florian Pflug writes: >> The only fix I can come up with is to explicitly test whether or not we're >> able to restore the structured error context in pg_xml_init_library(). > > Yeah, I think you are right. > >> The downside of this is that a libxml v

Re: [HACKERS] Deferred partial/expression unique constraints

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Fri, 2011-07-22 at 23:35 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On ons, 2011-07-13 at 11:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> > Our standard reason for not implementing UNIQUE constraints on >> > expressions has been that then you would have a thing that

Re: [HACKERS] Another issue with invalid XML values

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> As a side note, we don't add an rpath for libxml2 like we do for Perl and >>> Python. > >> Sounds like we should change that. > > I don't think so.  It would just be another headache for packagers --- > in Red Hat distros, at least, packages are

Re: [HACKERS] psql: bogus descriptions displayed by \d+

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: > That seems like a good way to document this; patch for master updated. > I avoided mucking with the documentation for COMMENT ON RULE and > COMMENT ON TRIGGER this time; they both say "table" when they really > mean "table or view", but m

Re: [HACKERS] Another issue with invalid XML values

Florian Pflug writes: > What's more, xml.c actually does attempt to protect against this situation > by calling LIBXML_TEST_VERSION in pg_xml_init_library(). > But that check doesn't fire in our case, because it explicitly allows the > actual library version to be newer than the header file versi

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on partition parents only?

On 07/26/2011 09:08 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Nikhil Sontakke wrote: Yeah. I think it's good that there's a barrier to blindly dropping a constraint that may be important to have on children, but there should be a way to override that. Hmmm, but then it does o

[HACKERS] longstanding mingw warning

Why do we get this warning on Mingw?: x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels -Wformat-security -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -g -I../../../../src/include -I/home/pgrunner/bf/root/HEAD/pgsql.3896/../pgsql/src/include

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on partition parents only?

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Nikhil Sontakke wrote: >> Yeah.  I think it's good that there's a barrier to blindly dropping a >> constraint that may be important to have on children, but there should >> be a way to override that. > > Hmmm, but then it does open up the possibility of naive users

Re: [HACKERS] write scalability

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Greg Smith wrote: > On 07/25/2011 04:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> I did 5-minute pgbench runs with unlogged tables and with permanent >> tables, restarting the database server and reinitializing the tables >> between each run. > > Database scale?  One or multip

Re: [HACKERS] Another issue with invalid XML values

On Jul26, 2011, at 01:57 , Noah Misch wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 09:06:41PM +0200, Florian Pflug wrote: >> On Jul25, 2011, at 20:37 , Bernd Helmle wrote: >>> Ah, but i got now what's wrong here: configure is confusing both libxml2 >>> installations, and a quick look into config.log proves tha

[HACKERS] 回复： [HACKERS] How to use CreateFunctionStmt's RETURN TABLE?

thank you! -- 原始邮件 -- 发件人: "Heikki Linnakangas"; 发送时间: 2011年7月26日(星期二) 下午3:58 收件人: "_??"; 抄送: "pgsql-hackers"; 主题: Re: [HACKERS] How to use CreateFunctionStmt's RETURN TABLE? On 26.07.2011 10:22, _?? wrote: >I do not know how to use the second s

Re: [HACKERS] vacuumlo patch

Here's another small change to the patch, it works fine for me and it quite saved my day. I try to submit the patch by email. diff --git a/contrib/vacuumlo/vacuumlo.c b/contrib/vacuumlo/vacuumlo.c index f6e2a28..1f88d72 100644 --- a/contrib/vacuumlo/vacuumlo.c +++ b/contrib/vacuumlo/vacuumlo.c @

Re: [HACKERS] Check constraints on partition parents only?

> > 8.4 had this change: > > > > * > > Force child tables to inherit CHECK constraints from parents > > (Alex Hunsaker, Nikhil Sontakke, Tom) > > > You're not the only one who occasionally bangs his head against it. > > Sorry for the occasional head bumps :) > Yeah. I

Re: [HACKERS] How to use CreateFunctionStmt's RETURN TABLE?

On 26.07.2011 10:22, _ʯͷ wrote: I do not know how to use the second syntax:RETURNS TABLE '(' table_func_column_list ')' createfunc_opt_list opt_definition. This is hardly a question related to PostgreSQL development, pgsql-general mailing list would've been more appropriate. This

[HACKERS] How to use CreateFunctionStmt's RETURN TABLE?

Hello Guys, Lately, I saw this syntax in ./src/backend/parser/Gray.y as following! CreateFunctionStmt: CREATE opt_or_replace FUNCTION func_name func_args_with_defaults RETURNS func_return createfunc_opt_list opt_definition