Re: [HACKERS] Progress on fast path sorting, btree index creation time

On 9 January 2012 19:45, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Obviously, many indexes are unique and thus won't have duplicates at >> all.  But if someone creates an index and doesn't make it unique, odds >> are very high that it has some duplicates.  Not sure how many we >> typically expect to see, but more tha

Re: [HACKERS] 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

On 12/30/11 9:44 AM, Aidan Van Dyk wrote: So moving to this new double-write-area bandwagon, we move from a "WAL FPW synced at the commit, collect as many other writes, then final sync" type system to a system where *EVERY* write requires syncs of 2 separate 8K writes at buffer write-out time.

Re: [HACKERS] Sending notifications from the master to the standby

Joachim Wieland writes: > [ send NOTIFYs to slaves by means of: ] > In the patch I added a new WAL message type, XLOG_NOTIFY that writes > out WAL records when the notifications are written into the pages of > the SLRU ring buffer. Whenever an SLRU page is found to be full, a new > WAL record will

Re: [HACKERS] 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

On 1/7/12 5:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Perhaps there needs to be a third setting, calculate-but-dont-verify, where CRCs are updated but existing CRCs are not expected to be correct. And a utility to scan through your database and fix any incorrect CRCs, so that after that's run in calculate

Re: [HACKERS] WIP(!) Double Writes

On 1/5/12 1:19 AM, David Fetter wrote: To achieve efficiency, the checkpoint writer and bgwriter should batch writes to multiple pages together. Currently, there is an option "batched_buffer_writes" that specifies how many buffers to batch at a time. However, we may want to remove that option f

Re: [HACKERS] LWLOCK_STATS

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote:  Somewhat depressingly, virtually all of the interesting activity still centers around the same three locks that were problematic back then, which means that - although overall per

Re: [HACKERS] Why is CF 2011-11 still listed as "In Progress"?

On 1/9/12 1:37 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: Shouldn't it have been closed weeks ago? It's still "In Progress" mostly because I flaked out for the holidays after pushing to get most things ready for commit or returned a few weeks ago, but not quite nailing it shut. I'm back to mostly full-time on

Re: [HACKERS] 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

On Jan 6, 2012, at 4:36 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On Friday, January 06, 2012 11:30:53 AM Simon Riggs wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> * Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: I discover that non-all-zeroes holes are fairly common, just not very fre

Re: [HACKERS] Buffer overflow in contrib/test_parser/test_parser.c

Paul Guyot writes: > There is a buffer overflow in sample code's test_parser.c that can yield to a > segmentation fault. The next byte of the buffer is tested against ' ' before > its availability is checked. Hmm, yeah. The probability of a failure is very low of course, but still it'd be bett

Re: [HACKERS] LWLOCK_STATS

On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Somewhat depressingly, >>> virtually all of the interesting activity still centers around the >>> same three locks that were problematic back then, which means that - >>> although overall performance has improved quite a bit - we've not >>> really

Re: [HACKERS] Page Checksums

On Jan 8, 2012, at 5:25 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Heikki Linnakangas > wrote: > >> Double-writes would be a useful option also to reduce the size of WAL that >> needs to be shipped in replication. >> >> Or you could just use a filesystem that does CRCs... > > Dou

Re: [HACKERS] Generate call graphs in run-time

On Jan 9, 2012, at 2:08 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote: > Generates call graphs of function calls within a transaction in run-time. Related to this... we had Command Prompt write a function for us that would spit out the complete call-graph of the current call stack whenever it was called. Alvaro didn'

[HACKERS] Buffer overflow in contrib/test_parser/test_parser.c

Hello, There is a buffer overflow in sample code's test_parser.c that can yield to a segmentation fault. The next byte of the buffer is tested against ' ' before its availability is checked. You will find attached a simple patch that fixes the bug. Paul -- Semiocasthttp://semiocas

Re: [HACKERS] Generate call graphs in run-time

Joel Jacobson wrote: > The perl script pg_callgraph.pl replaces the oids with actual > function names before generating the call graphs using GraphVIz: Regardless of anything else, I think you need to allow for function overloading. You could cover that, I think, by replacing this literal in

[HACKERS] intermittent ECPG regression failure on Windows 7

Every so often one or other of my buildfarm animals running on Windows 7 (64 bit) gets a regression failure running the ECPG tests. See . It's not always the same test that fails, but it

Re: [HACKERS] broken link to PostgreSQL 9.1 repository for Fedora 14

2012/1/9 Devrim GÜNDÜZ : > > Hi, > > On Sat, 2012-01-07 at 08:47 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> There is broken link on >> http://yum.postgresql.org/repopackages.php page >> >> PostgreSQL 9.1 - Fedora 14 - >> http://yum.postgresql.org/9.1/fedora/fedora-14-i386/pgdg-fedora-9.1-2.noarch.rpm >> - 404

Re: [HACKERS] broken link to PostgreSQL 9.1 repository for Fedora 14

Hi, On Sat, 2012-01-07 at 08:47 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: > There is broken link on > http://yum.postgresql.org/repopackages.php page > > PostgreSQL 9.1 - Fedora 14 - > http://yum.postgresql.org/9.1/fedora/fedora-14-i386/pgdg-fedora-9.1-2.noarch.rpm > - 404 - Not Found Fixed, but please repo

Re: [HACKERS] Moving more work outside WALInsertLock

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> Can we also try aligning the actual insertions onto cache lines rather >> than just MAXALIGNing them? The WAL header fills half a cache line as >> it is, so many other records will fit nicely. I'd like to see what >> that does to space

Re: [HACKERS] Progress on fast path sorting, btree index creation time

> Obviously, many indexes are unique and thus won't have duplicates at > all. But if someone creates an index and doesn't make it unique, odds > are very high that it has some duplicates. Not sure how many we > typically expect to see, but more than zero... Peter may not, but I personally admin

Re: [HACKERS] Why is CF 2011-11 still listed as "In Progress"?

On 1/9/12 10:39 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 09.01.2012 20:37, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Shouldn't it have been closed weeks ago? > > There are still patches in "Needs Review" and "Ready for Committer" > states... Well, at this point I think we should bump them to CF4. Certainly nobody is work

Re: [HACKERS] hiding variable-length fields from Form_pg_* structs

Peter Eisentraut writes: > So I think the relcache.c thing should be fixed and then this might be > good to go. Cosmetic gripes: I think we could get rid of the various comments that say things like "variable length fields start here", since the #ifdef CATALOG_VARLEN lines now represent that in a

Re: [HACKERS] hiding variable-length fields from Form_pg_* structs

So here is a patch for that. There are a few cases that break when hiding all variable length fields: Access to indclass in relcache.c, as discussed upthread, which should be fixed. Access to pg_largeobject.data. This is apparently OK, per comment in inv_api.c. Access to pg_proc.proargtypes in

Re: [HACKERS] Why is CF 2011-11 still listed as "In Progress"?

On 09.01.2012 20:37, Josh Berkus wrote: Shouldn't it have been closed weeks ago? There are still patches in "Needs Review" and "Ready for Committer" states... -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresq

[HACKERS] Why is CF 2011-11 still listed as "In Progress"?

Shouldn't it have been closed weeks ago? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- 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] pgindent README correction

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > I found that I needed to adjust the command given in the README file > for pgindent.  Trivial patch attached. Committed. > The one other issue I ran into in following the latest pgindent > instructions was that I had to add #include to th

Re: [HACKERS] information schema/aclexplode doesn't know about default privileges

On mån, 2012-01-02 at 06:43 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I figured the best and most flexible way to address this is to export > acldefault() as an SQL function and replace > > aclexplode(proacl) > > with > > aclexplode(coalesce(proacl, acldefault('f', proowner))) > > where 'f' here

[HACKERS] pgindent README correction

I found that I needed to adjust the command given in the README file for pgindent. Trivial patch attached. The one other issue I ran into in following the latest pgindent instructions was that I had to add #include to the parse.c file (as included in the pg_bsd_indent-1.1.tar.gz file at ftp://f

Re: [HACKERS] entab .gitignore file

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 17:24, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Attached is a trivial patch to add what I believe to be a missing > .gitignore file.  You won't run into it unless you are getting > things set up for running pgindent. Applied, thanks. --  Magnus Hagander  Me: http://www.hagander.net/  Work

Re: [HACKERS] streaming header too small

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:00, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:09, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 07:34, Jaime Casanova wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I was trying pg_basebackup on head, i used this command: >>> """ >>> postgres@jaime:/usr/local/pgsql/9.2$ bin/pg_base

[HACKERS] entab .gitignore file

Attached is a trivial patch to add what I believe to be a missing .gitignore file. You won't run into it unless you are getting things set up for running pgindent. -Kevin *** /dev/null --- b/src/tools/entab/.gitignore *** *** 0 --- 1 + /entab -- Sent via pgsql-hackers ma

Re: [HACKERS] random_page_cost vs seq_page_cost

On 07/01/12 23:01, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On tor, 2012-01-05 at 10:04 +, Benedikt Grundmann wrote: > > We have recently upgrade two of our biggest postgres databases > > to new hardware and minor version number bump (8.4.5 -> 8.4.9). > > > > We are experiencing a big performance regression

Re: [HACKERS] Moving more work outside WALInsertLock

On 09.01.2012 15:44, Simon Riggs wrote: On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Anyway, here's a new version of the patch. It no longer busy-waits for in-progress insertions to finish, and handles xlog-switches. This is now feature-complete. It's a pretty complicated patch,

Re: [HACKERS] Moving more work outside WALInsertLock

On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Anyway, here's a new version of the patch. It no longer busy-waits for > in-progress insertions to finish, and handles xlog-switches. This is now > feature-complete. It's a pretty complicated patch, so I would appreciate > more eyeballs

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Allow breaking out of hung connection attempts

On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 10:35:50AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 08.01.2012 22:18, Ryan Kelly wrote: > >@@ -1570,7 +1570,13 @@ do_connect(char *dbname, char *user, char *host, char > >*port) > > keywords[7] = NULL; > > values[7] = NULL; > > > >-n_conn =

Re: [HACKERS] streaming header too small

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:09, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 07:34, Jaime Casanova wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I was trying pg_basebackup on head, i used this command: >> """ >> postgres@jaime:/usr/local/pgsql/9.2$ bin/pg_basebackup -D $PWD/data2 >> -x stream -P -p 54392 >> """ >> >> i g

Re: [HACKERS] streaming header too small

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 07:34, Jaime Casanova wrote: > Hi, > > I was trying pg_basebackup on head, i used this command: > """ > postgres@jaime:/usr/local/pgsql/9.2$ bin/pg_basebackup -D $PWD/data2 > -x stream -P -p 54392 > """ > > i got this error > """ > 19093/19093 kB (100%), 1/1 tablespace > pg_

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Allow breaking out of hung connection attempts

On 08.01.2012 22:18, Ryan Kelly wrote: @@ -1570,7 +1570,13 @@ do_connect(char *dbname, char *user, char *host, char *port) keywords[7] = NULL; values[7] = NULL; - n_conn = PQconnectdbParams(keywords, values, true); + if (sigsetjmp(sigi