Re: [HACKERS] spinlocks on powerpc

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > (It's depressing that these numbers have hardly moved since August --- > at least on this test, the work that Robert's done has not made any > difference.) Most of the scalability work that's been committed since August has really been about Proc

Re: [HACKERS] controlling the location of server-side SSL files

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On mån, 2012-01-02 at 15:47 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Were you thinking one option pointing to a directory or one option per >> file? > One option per file: That seems like serious overkill. Why not one option specifying the directory? What use-case is there

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 01:18:41AM +, Simon Riggs wrote: > Just for the record, yes we do run multiple catalog scans in some > parts of the code. > > So I can see how we might trigger 4 nested scans, using cache > replacement while scanning, so best assume more, with no guarantee of > them bei

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:09:16PM +, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> Attached patch makes SnapshotNow into an MVCC snapshot, initialised at >>> the start of each scan iff SnapshotNow is passed as

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Simon Riggs writes: >>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Noah Misch wrote: On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:09:16PM +, Simon Riggs wrote: > Attached patch makes SnapshotNow into an MVCC

Re: [HACKERS] SQL:2011 features

On Jan 2, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > * Named arguments in function calls: done since PG 9.0; and we're > phasing out the => operator. We don’t support `=>` for params yet, right? Still just `:=`? David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pg_regress: Replace exit_nicely() with exit() plus atexit() hook

On 01/02/2012 04:37 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On mån, 2012-01-02 at 15:55 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 01/02/2012 03:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: pg_regress: Replace exit_nicely() with exit() plus atexit() hook This appears to have broken the buildfarm. I think you mean it has cause

Re: [HACKERS] backup_label during crash recovery: do we know how to solve it?

Magnus Hagander writes: > Well, that certainly goes to enough detail to agree that no, that > can't be done with only minor modifications to pg_basebackup. Nor > could it be done with your python program talking directly to the > walsender backend and get around it that way. But you probably alrea

Re: [HACKERS] controlling the location of server-side SSL files

On mån, 2012-01-02 at 15:47 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Were you thinking one option pointing to a directory or one option per > file? One option per file: ssl_cert_file ssl_key_file ssl_ca_file ssl_crl_file This is very similar to the configuration of, for example, Apache, Dovecot, Postfix,

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pg_regress: Replace exit_nicely() with exit() plus atexit() hook

On mån, 2012-01-02 at 15:55 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 01/02/2012 03:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > pg_regress: Replace exit_nicely() with exit() plus atexit() hook > > > > This appears to have broken the buildfarm. I think you mean it has caused the build to fail on some buildfarm

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: >> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:09:16PM +, Simon Riggs wrote: Attached patch makes SnapshotNow into an MVCC snapshot, > >>> That's a neat trick.  However, if you sta

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: >> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> But you still didn't.  I wanted to know what those numbers were and how >>> they show that there's not a performance regression.  Presumably you >>> meant that some were "

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

Simon Riggs writes: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> But you still didn't.  I wanted to know what those numbers were and how >> they show that there's not a performance regression.  Presumably you >> meant that some were "before" and some "after", but they were not so >> label

Re: [HACKERS] SQL:2011 features

Hello 2012/1/2 Peter Eisentraut : > On mån, 2012-01-02 at 09:33 +, Simon Riggs wrote: >> Are there any features in SQL:2011 that we should be considering for 9.2? trim_array can be simply implemented for one dim array. I am not sure about semantic for multidim arrays. Regards Pavel -- Sen

Re: [HACKERS] our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: >> Does anyone have a better idea for reducing BufFreelistLock >> contention? Something simple that will work for 9.2? > > Get rid of the freelist?  Once shared buffers are full, it's just about > useless anyway.  But you'd nee

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Excerpts from Noah Misch's message of lun ene 02 16:39:09 -0300 2012: >> >> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 04:33:28PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> > Uh, I thought detoasting had its own visibility test function .. I mean, >> > otherwise, what

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

Excerpts from Noah Misch's message of lun ene 02 16:39:09 -0300 2012: > > On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 04:33:28PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Uh, I thought detoasting had its own visibility test function .. I mean, > > otherwise, what is HeapTupleSatisfiesToast for? > > The SnapshotNow scan was

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: >> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Um ... timings of what? > >> Apologies for being terse, no problem to give a full explanation. > > But you still didn't.  I wanted to know what those numbers were and how

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: >> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:09:16PM +, Simon Riggs wrote: Attached patch makes SnapshotNow into an MVCC snapshot, > >>> That's a neat trick.  However, if you sta

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 04:33:28PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Excerpts from Noah Misch's message of lun ene 02 16:25:25 -0300 2012: > > On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 06:41:31PM +, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:09:

Re: [HACKERS] backup_label during crash recovery: do we know how to solve it?

On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 23:09, Daniel Farina wrote: > On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> It also doesn't affect backups taken through pg_basebackup - but I >> guess you have good reasons for not being able to use that? > > Parallel archiving/de-archiving and segmentation of

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

Excerpts from Noah Misch's message of lun ene 02 16:25:25 -0300 2012: > On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 06:41:31PM +, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:09:16PM +, Simon Riggs wrote: > > >> Attached patch makes SnapshotNow int

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 06:41:31PM +, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:09:16PM +, Simon Riggs wrote: > >> Attached patch makes SnapshotNow into an MVCC snapshot, initialised at > >> the start of each scan iff SnapshotNow

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

Simon Riggs writes: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Um ... timings of what? > Apologies for being terse, no problem to give a full explanation. But you still didn't. I wanted to know what those numbers were and how they show that there's not a performance regression. Pres

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

Simon Riggs writes: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:09:16PM +, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> Attached patch makes SnapshotNow into an MVCC snapshot, >> That's a neat trick.  However, if you start a new SnapshotNow scan while one >> is >> ongoing, t

Re: [HACKERS] SQL:2011 features

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On mån, 2012-01-02 at 09:33 +, Simon Riggs wrote: >> Are there any features in SQL:2011 that we should be considering for 9.2? >> >> We seem quite close on temporal stuff, so maybe just a little syntax work? > > I am aware of this piece

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:09:16PM +, Simon Riggs wrote: >> Attached patch makes SnapshotNow into an MVCC snapshot, initialised at >> the start of each scan iff SnapshotNow is passed as the scan's >> snapshot. It's fairly brief but seems to d

Re: [HACKERS] SQL:2011 features

On mån, 2012-01-02 at 09:33 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > Are there any features in SQL:2011 that we should be considering for 9.2? > > We seem quite close on temporal stuff, so maybe just a little syntax work? I am aware of this piece on what's new in SQL:2011: http://petereisentraut.blogspot.com/

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:09:16PM +, Simon Riggs wrote: > Attached patch makes SnapshotNow into an MVCC snapshot, initialised at > the start of each scan iff SnapshotNow is passed as the scan's > snapshot. It's fairly brief but seems to do the trick. That's a neat trick. However, if you star

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: >> Assuming that is the right approach, some timings > > Um ... timings of what? Apologies for being terse, no problem to give a full explanation. You suggested earlier that putting calls to GetSnapshotData() in place of usin

Re: [HACKERS] our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame

Simon Riggs writes: > Does anyone have a better idea for reducing BufFreelistLock > contention? Something simple that will work for 9.2? Get rid of the freelist? Once shared buffers are full, it's just about useless anyway. But you'd need to think about the test cases that you pay attention to,

Re: [HACKERS] our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Simon is proposing to bound the > really bad case where you flip through the entire ring multiple times > before you find a buffer, and that may well be worth doing.  But I > think even scanning 100 buffers every time you need to bring somethi

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On 01/02/2012 09:51 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Jan 2, 2012 12:02 AM, "Andrew Dunstan" > wrote: > > > > On 12/31/2011 06:10 PM, Brar Piening wrote: >> >> Brar Piening wrote: >>> >>> Andrew Dunstan wrote: Can you narrow down exactly what in that commit

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

Simon Riggs writes: > Assuming that is the right approach, some timings Um ... timings of what? regards, tom lane -- 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] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch writes: >> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:13:57PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >>> ... but this performance test seems to me to be entirely misguided, >>> because it's testing a situation that isn't going to occur much in the >>> field, precisel

Re: [HACKERS] patch: ALTER TABLE IF EXISTS

Hello here is updated patch Regards Pavel 2012/1/2 Simon Riggs : > On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> this is relative simple patch that add possibility to skip noexisting >> tables. It is necessary for silent cleaning when dump is loaded. > > Agreed, nice simple and un

Re: [HACKERS] alternate psql file locations

On 01/01/2012 04:05 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 12/31/2011 04:26 PM, Aidan Van Dyk wrote: On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of sáb dic 31 12:52:02 -0300 2011: It's not a big thing, but I just found myself in a shared environmen

Re: [HACKERS] Review of VS 2010 support patches

On Jan 2, 2012 12:02 AM, "Andrew Dunstan" wrote: > > > > On 12/31/2011 06:10 PM, Brar Piening wrote: >> >> Brar Piening wrote: >>> >>> Andrew Dunstan wrote: Can you narrow down exactly what in that commit broke VS 2010? Are there any compiler warnings? >>> >>> >>> I was able to nail down

Re: [HACKERS] controlling the location of server-side SSL files

On Jan 2, 2012 5:33 AM, "Peter Eisentraut" wrote: > > I think I would like to have a set of GUC parameters to control the > location of the server-side SSL files. In a setup that has all the > other configuration files under /etc, the SSL files ought to go there as > well. (For comparison, most

Re: [HACKERS] patch: ALTER TABLE IF EXISTS

Hello 2012/1/2 Tomas Vondra : > On 2 Leden 2012, 14:11, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> Hello >> >> this is relative simple patch that add possibility to skip noexisting >> tables. It is necessary for silent cleaning when dump is loaded. > > Just a curious question - what use case is solved by this? Under

Re: [HACKERS] patch: ALTER TABLE IF EXISTS

On 2 Leden 2012, 14:11, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Hello > > this is relative simple patch that add possibility to skip noexisting > tables. It is necessary for silent cleaning when dump is loaded. Just a curious question - what use case is solved by this? Under what circumstances you get an ALTER TAB

Re: [HACKERS] patch: ALTER TABLE IF EXISTS

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > this is relative simple patch that add possibility to skip noexisting > tables. It is necessary for silent cleaning when dump is loaded. Agreed, nice simple and uncontentious patch. All good apart from two minor things: * doc page needs to

[HACKERS] patch: ALTER TABLE IF EXISTS

Hello this is relative simple patch that add possibility to skip noexisting tables. It is necessary for silent cleaning when dump is loaded. Regards Pavel Stehule *** ./doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml.orig 2011-12-01 22:47:20.0 +0100 --- ./doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml 2012-01-02 1

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] grants vs. inherited tables

Marko Kreen writes: > I tried to generalize a function that creates partitions > for a table and found out it's impossible to do it for grants. > > Basically, what I want is a child table that takes it's grants > from parent table. IMHO quite reasonable request. But I don't > see a way to do it

Re: [HACKERS] sorting operators in pg_dump

Peter Eisentraut writes: > order, say, prefix, postfix, infix. > > (It might be surprising that something like this is necessary, but it > happens. ip4r for example contains operators with different fixnesses > (fixities?).) I think it's called “arity” :) Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2n

[HACKERS] SQL:2011 features

Are there any features in SQL:2011 that we should be considering for 9.2? We seem quite close on temporal stuff, so maybe just a little syntax work? Not sure and not planning anything myself, just checking. --  Simon Riggs   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/  PostgreSQL Development, 2