On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Convince me. :-)
Yeah, I try.
> My reading of the situation is that you're talking about a problem
> that will only occur if, while the master is in the process of
> shutting down, a network error occurs.
No. This happens even if a network
On Oct 19, 2011 6:21 AM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
>
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > On tis, 2011-10-18 at 18:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Well, an actually empty pg_hba.conf file would have the same problem,
> >> and it's pretty hard to see any situation where it would be useful to
> >> start the postm
Jeff Davis writes:
> On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 22:25 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Presumably because Jeff doesn't have that particular locale installed.
>> locale -a would clarify that.
> $ locale -a |grep -i tr
> tr_CY.utf8
> tr_TR.utf8
> So, yes, I only have the UTF8 version.
Wow, that's int
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 22:25 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Presumably because Jeff doesn't have that particular locale installed.
> locale -a would clarify that.
$ locale -a |grep -i tr
tr_CY.utf8
tr_TR.utf8
So, yes, I only have the UTF8 version. I didn't realize they were
different -- do you h
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> One thing worth asking is why we're willing to violate half a dozen
>> different coding rules if we see ProcDiePending, yet we're perfectly
>> happy to rely on the client understanding a WARNING for the
>> QueryCancelPendi
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Kerem Kat wrote:
> CORRESPONDING clause take 2
You should probably read this:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Submitting_a_Patch
And add your patch here:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.ent
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Ok, fixed and applied.
>
> You seem to have forgot to change protocol.sgml.
> Patch attached.
Committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Po
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On tis, 2011-10-18 at 18:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, an actually empty pg_hba.conf file would have the same problem,
>> and it's pretty hard to see any situation where it would be useful to
>> start the postmaster and not let it accept any connections. Should we
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> One thing worth asking is why we're willing to violate half a dozen
> different coding rules if we see ProcDiePending, yet we're perfectly
> happy to rely on the client understanding a WARNING for the
> QueryCancelPending case. Another is whethe
On tis, 2011-10-18 at 18:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > The problem with this is you cannot get into the database as it acts
> > as if it did find the hba file but found it empty.
>
> Well, an actually empty pg_hba.conf file would have the same problem,
> and it's pretty hard to see any situation w
On tis, 2011-10-18 at 16:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > On tis, 2011-10-18 at 15:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I don't actually see that warning on my Fedora 15 machine, with
> >> gcc version 4.6.1 20110908 (Red Hat 4.6.1-9) (GCC)
>
> > You get the "unused return value"
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Another question worth asking is how is it that we're getting to
>> ReadCommand at all, if we have already determined that the client is
>> gone. Fixing that with an additional CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS seems like
>> a crock.
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
>> I tried to reproduce the scenario with enough small from/join_collapse_limit
>> (typically 1), but it allows to push down qualifiers into the least scan
>> plan.
> Hmm, you're right. LIMIT 10 prevents qual pu
> > + /*
> > +* The backend writes WAL of FPW at checkpoint. However, The
> > backend do
> > +* not need to write WAL of FPW at checkpoint shutdown because
> > it
> > +* performs when startup finishes.
> > +*/
> > + XLogReportPa
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 5:45 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
In 9.2dev and 9.1, when walreceiver detects an error while sending data
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> I'm a bit confusing about this sentence.
>
>> If you can make this work, I think it could be a pretty sweet plannner
>> optimization even apart from the implications for security views.
>> Consider a query of this form:
>>
>> A
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> The simple fix is to change InteractiveBackend() so that it calls
>>> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() before it outputs "backend> ". Thought?
>
>> I'm tempted to say we should
On 19 October 2011 00:38, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
>> I noticed that if the hba_file setting in the config is uncommented
>> and set to a directory instead of the full path to the file, no error
>> occurs when the service starts.
>
> When I try that, I get a boatload of errors ending
Thom Brown writes:
> I noticed that if the hba_file setting in the config is uncommented
> and set to a directory instead of the full path to the file, no error
> occurs when the service starts.
When I try that, I get a boatload of errors ending with
FATAL: could not load pg_hba.conf
I suspect
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 18.10.2011 23:28, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't think the assert is a good idea. If it ever did happen, that
>> would promote the problem from "corrupted data in the log" to "database
>> crash".
> I believe the idea is that if there's a platform that does that, we wa
I wrote:
> I think a large fraction of the -Waddress warnings are coming from
> this line in the heap_getattr macro:
> AssertMacro((tup) != NULL), \
> Seems to me we could just lose that test and be no worse off, since
> the macro is surely gonna dump core anyway on a null pointer.
Actually,
Tom Lane wrote:
> As far as getting rid of the compiler warning is concerned, I find
> that the
>
> rc = write(...);
> (void) rc;
>
> suggestion works for me (gcc 4.6.1).
That silences the warning on my machine, too.
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hacker
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't think the assert is a good idea. If it ever did happen,
>> that would promote the problem from "corrupted data in the log" to
>> "database crash".
> ... on a --enable-cassert build.
> If we think it's even remotely possible that it could
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> The simple fix is to change InteractiveBackend() so that it calls
>> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() before it outputs "backend> ". Thought?
> I'm tempted to say we should do that in PostgresMain() instead, maybe
> something lik
Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't think the assert is a good idea. If it ever did happen,
> that would promote the problem from "corrupted data in the log" to
> "database crash".
... on a --enable-cassert build.
If we think it's even remotely possible that it could happen, maybe
we should do the lo
On 18.10.2011 23:28, Tom Lane wrote:
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
Would it be too weird to do something like this for each?:
- write(fileno(stderr), line, len);
+ rc = write(fileno(stderr), line, len);
+ if (rc>= 0&& rc != len)
+ {
+ Assert(false);
+
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> Would it be too weird to do something like this for each?:
> - write(fileno(stderr), line, len);
> + rc = write(fileno(stderr), line, len);
> + if (rc >= 0 && rc != len)
> + {
> + Assert(false);
> + return;
> + }
I don
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> On tis, 2011-10-18 at 15:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I don't actually see that warning on my Fedora 15 machine, with
>>> gcc version 4.6.1 20110908 (Red Hat 4.6.1-9) (GCC)
>
>> You get the "unused return value" warni
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On tis, 2011-10-18 at 15:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't actually see that warning on my Fedora 15 machine, with
>> gcc version 4.6.1 20110908 (Red Hat 4.6.1-9) (GCC)
> You get the "unused return value" warnings with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2,
> which has been the defaul
Robert Haas wrote:
> Unfortunately, whether Tom's right or not, we still don't have a
> solution to the compiler warning.
Would it be too weird to do something like this for each?:
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/error/elog.c
b/src/backend/utils/error/elog.c
index f0b3b1f..bea5489 100644
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> What are the people who do see it using?
Currently:
gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.5.2-8ubuntu4) 4.5.2
on
Linux version 2.6.38-11-generic (buildd@allspice) (gcc version 4.5.2
(Ubuntu/Linaro 4.5.2-8ubuntu4) ) #50-Ubuntu SMP Mon Sep 12 21:17:25
UTC 2011
I've seen it on earlier ve
On tis, 2011-10-18 at 15:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > Unfortunately, whether Tom's right or not, we still don't have a
> > solution to the compiler warning.
>
> I don't actually see that warning on my Fedora 15 machine, with
> gcc version 4.6.1 20110908 (Red Hat 4.6.1
Robert Haas writes:
> Unfortunately, whether Tom's right or not, we still don't have a
> solution to the compiler warning.
I don't actually see that warning on my Fedora 15 machine, with
gcc version 4.6.1 20110908 (Red Hat 4.6.1-9) (GCC)
What are the people who do see it using?
(I do se
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> My dim recollection is that Tom and I and maybe some others did
>> tests on a bunch of platforms at the time we introduced the
>> protocol to make sure it did work this way, since it's crucial to
>> making sure we
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> WARNING: canceling the wait for synchronous replication and
> terminating connection due to administrator command
> DETAIL: The transaction has already committed locally, but might not
> have been replicated to the standby.
> backend> FATAL:
On tis, 2011-10-18 at 15:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > On tis, 2011-10-18 at 01:07 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> >> If I qualify it as "tr_TR.UTF-8" it works. Perhaps I have something
> >> misconfigured on my system (Ubuntu 11.10)? I just installed:
> >> language-pack-de
>
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On tis, 2011-10-18 at 01:07 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> If I qualify it as "tr_TR.UTF-8" it works. Perhaps I have something
>> misconfigured on my system (Ubuntu 11.10)? I just installed:
>> language-pack-de
>> language-pack-tr
>> language-pack-sv
>> in an attempt to mak
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> My dim recollection is that Tom and I and maybe some others did
> tests on a bunch of platforms at the time we introduced the
> protocol to make sure it did work this way, since it's crucial to
> making sure we don't get interleaved log lines.
Testing is good; I like te
Tom Lane wrote:
> If the O_NONBLOCK flag is clear, a write request may cause the
> thread to block, but on normal completion it shall return
> nbyte.
>
> Note the last in particular. Short writes are specifically
> disallowed on pipes.
OK, that's pretty definitive. I yield the point.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> If you are suggesting DAC and MAC permissions should be checked
> on the same place like as we already doing at ExecCheckRTPerms(),
> I'd like to agree with the suggestion, rather than all the checks within
> object_access_hook, although it wi
On 10/18/2011 01:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
The chunks are sent indivisibly, because they are less than the pipe
buffer size. Read the pipe man page. It's guaranteed that the write
will either succeed or fail as a whole, not
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The chunks are sent indivisibly, because they are less than the pipe
>> buffer size. Read the pipe man page. It's guaranteed that the write
>> will either succeed or fail as a whole, not write a partial message.
>> If we
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm also concerned that we are adding this to the BEGIN statement as
>> the only option.
>
> Huh? The last version of the patch has it only as SET TRANSACTION
> SNAPSHOT, which I think is the right way.
Sorry Tom, didn't see your name on it ea
2011/10/18 Robert Haas :
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
>> For example, I hope sepgsql to perform as follows when user create a new
>> table.
>> - It computes a default security label that needs Oid of the namespace.
>> - It checks db_table:{create} permission on the secu
Simon Riggs writes:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Marko Tiikkaja
>> Thanks, this one looks good to me. Going to mark this patch as ready for
>> committer.
> I don't see any tests with this patch, so I personally won't be the
> committer on this just yet.
I've already taken it according to t
On tis, 2011-10-18 at 09:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> But some of the remaining -Waddress warnings are not so painless to
> get rid of. Ultimately we might have to add -Wno-address to the
> default CFLAGS.
Here is the bug report to gcc on this issue:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=487
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think that what Kevin was on about was something else entirely,
>> namely whether we need to retry writes to disk.
> I would phrase it that we need to *continue* a write to disk if the
> OS chooses to write a portion of it and return to the caller
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> And it would break the code. The whole point here is that the message
>>> must be sent indivisibly.
>
>> How is that different than the chunking that the while loop is
Oh, sorry for repeating the same posts. Gmail seems to have not worked
fine... :(
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Ok, fixed and applied.
>
> You seem to have forgot to change protocol.sgml.
> Patch attached.
>
> Re
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> And it would break the code. The whole point here is that the message
>> must be sent indivisibly.
> How is that different than the chunking that the while loop is already doing?
The chunks are sent indivisibly, because
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> Any reason or objection to committing this patch?
>>
>> Not on my end, though I haven't reviewed it in detail. One minor note
>>
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Any reason or objection to committing this patch?
>
> Not on my end, though I haven't reviewed it in detail. One minor note
> - I was mildly surprised to see that you moved this to the
>
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> No, I believe we are OK everywhere else. We are only ignoring the
>>> result in cases where we are trying to report errors in the first place.
>
>> The releva
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Ok, fixed and applied.
You seem to have forgot to change protocol.sgml.
Patch attached.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
protocol_sgml_v1.patch
Description: Binary dat
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Ok, fixed and applied.
You seem to have forgot to change protocol.sgml.
Patch attached.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
protocol_sgml_v1.patch
Description: Binary dat
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Any reason or objection to committing this patch?
Not on my end, though I haven't reviewed it in detail. One minor note
- I was mildly surprised to see that you moved this to the
checkpointer rather than leaving it in the bgwriter:
+ /
Tom Lane wrote:
> And it would break the code. The whole point here is that the
> message must be sent indivisibly.
If the new code splits the message, it would previously have been
truncated. Is that less broken?
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.or
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> No, I believe we are OK everywhere else. We are only ignoring the
>> result in cases where we are trying to report errors in the first place.
> The relevant code is:
> while (len > PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD)
> {
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Ok, fixed and applied.
You seem to have forgot to change protocol.sgml.
Patch attached.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
protocol_sgml_v1.patch
Description: Binary dat
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> For example, I hope sepgsql to perform as follows when user create a new
> table.
> - It computes a default security label that needs Oid of the namespace.
> - It checks db_table:{create} permission on the security label being computed.
> -
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Ok, fixed and applied.
You seem to have forgot to change protocol.sgml.
Patch attached.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
protocol_sgml_v1.patch
Description: Binary dat
2011/10/18 Robert Haas :
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
>> struct ObjectAccessInfoData {
>> ObjectAccessType oa_type;
>> ObjectAddress oa_address;
>> union {
>> struct {
>> HeapTuple newtuple;
>>
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Marko Tiikkaja
wrote:
> On 2011-09-28 15:25, Joachim Wieland wrote:
>>
>> Yes, that's the desired behaviour, the patch add this paragraph to the
>> documentation already:
>
> I can't believe I missed that. My apologies.
>
> On 2011-09-29 05:16, Joachim Wieland wrot
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Dickson S. Guedes
> wrote:
>
>> Ah ok! I started reviewing the v4 patch version, this is my comments:
>
> ...
>
>> Well, all the tests was running with the default postgresql.conf in my
>> laptop but I'll setup
"Kevin Grittner" wrote:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-02/msg01719.php
Although, it being a quick example of the general idea, I have an
obvious bug there -- the write location would have to be "buffer +
t".
I think Noah might have also posted some example code a month o
Robert Haas wrote:
> Which it seems to me we could change by doing rc = write(). Then
> if rc <= 0, we bail out. If not, we add and subtract rc, rather
> than PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD.
Something along the general lines of this?:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-02/msg01719.php
>
Hi,
My apologies for a very late reply.
I agree the fix you applied is a better one. I have verified the fix by
testing the 'postgresql-9.1.1-1-windows-x64' installer.
Thank you.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:53, Ahmed Shinwari
> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> No, I believe we are OK everywhere else. We are only ignoring the
> result in cases where we are trying to report errors in the first place.
The relevant code is:
while (len > PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD)
{
p.proto.is_last = (dest
On tis, 2011-10-18 at 09:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
> > It is a pity we can't just tell the compiler to turn off the warning in
> > a particular case.
>
> I haven't tested, but won't an explicit cast to void silence the
> warning?
>
> (void) fwrite(...);
No, tried
On Wednesday, October 12, 2011, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > I looked over this issue and I don't thinking having pg_ctl restart
> fall
> > > back to 'start' is a good solution. ?I am concerned about cases where
> we
> > > start a different server without shutting down the o
Tom Lane wrote:
> I think that what Kevin was on about was something else entirely,
> namely whether we need to retry writes to disk.
I would phrase it that we need to *continue* a write to disk if the
OS chooses to write a portion of it and return to the caller with
the number actually writte
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On tis, 2011-10-18 at 01:00 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> I'm not sure if these can/should be fixed or not, but here are the
>> compiler warnings I'm getting on gcc and clang on ubuntu 11.10 with -O2.
>> The gcc ones are mostly new.
> They are expected with gcc 4.6. Ther
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3629.html
>
>> I'm still confused. The input string is already known to be valid
>> UTF-8, so the second byte (if there is one) must be be
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> It is a pity we can't just tell the compiler to turn off the warning in
> a particular case.
I haven't tested, but won't an explicit cast to void silence the
warning?
(void) fwrite(...);
There are places, notably the calls in elog.c, where ignoring write
failur
On 10/18/2011 09:03 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Jeff Davis wrote:
I'm not sure if these can/should be fixed or not, but here are the
compiler warnings I'm getting on gcc and clang on ubuntu 11.10 with
-O2.
elog.c: In function ‘write_pipe_chunks’:
elog.c:2479:8: warning: ignoring return valu
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Jeff Davis wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure if these can/should be fixed or not, but here are the
>> compiler warnings I'm getting on gcc and clang on ubuntu 11.10 with
>> -O2.
>
>> elog.c: In function ‘write_pipe_chunks’:
>> elog.c:2479:8: warning
Jeff Davis wrote:
> I'm not sure if these can/should be fixed or not, but here are the
> compiler warnings I'm getting on gcc and clang on ubuntu 11.10 with
> -O2.
> elog.c: In function ‘write_pipe_chunks’:
> elog.c:2479:8: warning: ignoring return value of ‘write’, declared
> with attribute w
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Pavan Deolasee
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Hmm, so you added the non-locked test in TAS()? Did you try adding it
>> just to TAS_SPIN()? On Itanium, I found that it was slightly better
>> to do it only in TAS_SPIN() - i.e. in
On tis, 2011-10-18 at 01:00 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> I'm not sure if these can/should be fixed or not, but here are the
> compiler warnings I'm getting on gcc and clang on ubuntu 11.10 with -O2.
> The gcc ones are mostly new.
They are expected with gcc 4.6. There isn't anything we can do about
On tis, 2011-10-18 at 01:07 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-10-16 at 16:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Jeff Davis writes:
> > > On master, I see a minor test error (at least on my machine) as well as
> > > a diff. Patch attached.
> >
> > Hmm, yeah, I forgot to fix this regression test when
Jeff Davis writes:
> On Sun, 2011-10-16 at 16:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm, yeah, I forgot to fix this regression test when I added that DETAIL
>> line. However, I don't see the need for fooling with the lc_time value?
> Here is the diff that I'm seeing on master right now with:
> make -s
Hi,
I noticed that if the hba_file setting in the config is uncommented
and set to a directory instead of the full path to the file, no error
occurs when the service starts.
For example:
hba_file = '/home/thom/Development/data'
The problem with this is you cannot get into the database as it act
> 2011/10/18 Robert Haas
>
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:30 PM, desmodemone
>> wrote:
>> > Seems an Oracle bug not Postgresql one!
>>
>> I don't think it's a bug for it to work. It'd probably work in
>> PostgreSQL too, if you inserted (2) first and then (1). It's just
>> that, as Tom says, if yo
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I'll add an assert to check this and a comment to explain.
>
> This means I'll have to hack it up further in my FK locks patch. No problem
> with that.
OK, I'll hold back to avoid interfering with your patch.
--
Simon Riggs
I'm not sure if these can/should be fixed or not, but here are the
compiler warnings I'm getting on gcc and clang on ubuntu 11.10 with -O2.
The gcc ones are mostly new.
GCC
$ gcc --version
gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.1-9ubuntu3) 4.6.1
Copyright (C) 2011 Fr
On Sun, 2011-10-16 at 16:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis writes:
> > On master, I see a minor test error (at least on my machine) as well as
> > a diff. Patch attached.
>
> Hmm, yeah, I forgot to fix this regression test when I added that DETAIL
> line. However, I don't see the need for f
> New API AnalyzeForeignTable
I didn't look at the patch, but I'm using CSV foreign tables with named pipes
to get near-realtime KPI calculated by postgresql. Of course, pipes can be
read just once, so I wouldn't want an "automatic analyze" of foreign tables...
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailin
Hi there,
I could workaround the behavior with deferred constraint, and
it's ok, but as I show, I have different behavior for constraint with the
same definition in two rdbms and Postgresql depends on the physical order of
row (with the same definition of constraint NOT DEFERRABLE INI
88 matches
Mail list logo
