On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
>>> I guess you concerned about that expected/select_views_1.out is
>>> patched, not expected/select_views.out.
>>> I'm not sure the reason why regression test script tries to make diff
>>> between results/select_views and expected/select_views_
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>> When I say skip the shutdown checkpoint, I mean remove it from the
>> critical path of required actions at the end of recovery. We can still
>> have a normal checkpoint kicked off at tha
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Jim Mlodgenski wrote:
> I have a need to send banner messages to a psql client that I can set
> on the server and will be displayed on any psql client that connects
> to the database. This would be mostly used as an additional indicator
> to which database you are c
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 04:01:23PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Thus - if I were to change psql to output timing on failed queries as
> well, will anybody object? ;)
+1
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postg
> >> It appears that the only way to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint
> >> is using ALTER TABLE. Is there no support in CREATE TABLE planned?
> >> That looks a bit odd.
> >
> > There are no plans to do that AFAIR, though maybe you could convince
> > Nikhil to write the patch to do so.
>
> T
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
>>> BTW, can you also resubmit the leakproof stuff as a separate patch for
>>> the last CF? Want to make sure we get that into 9.2, if at all
>>> possible.
>>>
>> Yes, it shall be attached on the next message.
>>
> The attached patch adds LEAKP
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> Do I modify the patch to place object-access-hook on deleteOneObject
> (probably, it is the best position to track actual deletion)?
> One problem is case of deletion of columns by ALTER TABLE.
> It just marks "attisdropped" flag; without rem
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of mar ene 17 22:23:13 -0300 2012:
> Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mar ene 17 13:50:20 -0300 2012:
> >
> > On 01/16/2012 05:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments,
> > > one that
On Jan 15, 2012, at 8:13 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> On 01/15/2012 04:17 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> I think it makes more sense to use the max read rate as the main knob,
>> rather than write rate. That's because the max read rate is higher than the
>> write rate, when you don't need to dirty p
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
>> Are there corner cases the author has failed to consider?
The hook can be executed by various processes since it's in
EmitErrorReport(). OTOH, log messages are written to the log
file by one process like syslogger (if you use csvlog or std
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Right now, psql \timing output only gives output for successful
> queries. Is there any actual reason for this, or just a "it happened"?
>
> In particular,I just had a very long run of a CREATE UNIQUE INDEX fail
> pretty far in - and I wou
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On mån, 2012-01-16 at 14:46 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> > On mån, 2012-01-16 at 11:17 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> I don't see how setting indisvalid to false helps with thi
On 01/17/2012 07:09 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On Jan 13, 2012, at 4:15 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:
Have two logical tasks:
a) A process that manages the list, and
b) Child processes doing vacuums.
Each time a child completes a table, it asks the parent for another one.
There is also a middle gr
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> I found it very helpful to reduce wal_writer_delay in pgbench tests, when
> running with synchronous_commit=off. The reason is that hint bits don't get
> set until the commit record is flushed to disk, so making the flushes more
> frequ
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mar ene 17 13:50:20 -0300 2012:
>
> On 01/16/2012 05:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments,
> > one that will allow you to download patches separately. (Currently,
> > attachments that ha
On 01/17/2012 03:47 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I'm very curious about what impact DW would have on big servers with
write-back cache that becomes saturated, like in Greg Smith's post
here...
My guess is that a percentage of the dbt-2 run results posted here are
hitting that sort of problem. We
Excerpts from Jim Nasby's message of mar ene 17 21:21:57 -0300 2012:
> On Jan 15, 2012, at 4:42 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > Attached is a patch that myself and Simon Riggs collaborated on. I
> > took the group commit patch that Simon posted to the list back in
> > November, and partially rewrot
On Jan 15, 2012, at 4:42 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Attached is a patch that myself and Simon Riggs collaborated on. I
> took the group commit patch that Simon posted to the list back in
> November, and partially rewrote it.
Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but I noticed a few places doing
On Jan 13, 2012, at 4:15 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:
> Have two logical tasks:
> a) A process that manages the list, and
> b) Child processes doing vacuums.
>
> Each time a child completes a table, it asks the parent for another one.
There is also a middle ground, because having the the schedul
On Jan 17, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of mar ene 17 13:59:57 -0300 2012:
>> It appears that the only way to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint
>> is using ALTER TABLE. Is there no support in CREATE TABLE planned?
>> That looks a bit odd
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On mån, 2012-01-16 at 22:00 -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
>> Adjusting that expectation is another side to pragmatism based on
>> recent history I think needs to be acknowledged, but is unlikely to be
>> improved on. 9.0 shipped on September 2
Dimitri Fontaine writes:
> I still have some cleaning to do before to prepare the next patch
> version, such as documentation updating and dealing with rewrites of
> CHECK and DEFAULT column constraints in CREATE TABLE. I had to add
> support for the T_A_Const parser node, and now I'm about to se
On 16 January 2012 08:06, Ilya Kosmodemiansky wrote:
> That is quite useful feature to implement smth. like message queues
> based on database and so on.
> Now there is possibility to jump over luck of such feature in Postgres
> using current advisory lock implementation (pg_try_advisory_xact_lock
Dimitri Fontaine writes:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> But on the flip side, I think we're generally a bit more flexible
>> about exposing things via C than through the procedural languages.
>
> Then as Andres proposed, a new function would be available to get the
> value, we're not changing the trigg
Hi!
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 23:07, Martin Pihlak wrote:
>> I think the hook warrants a comment that, whether the messages will be
>> seen, depends on the log_min_messages setting.
>
> Comment added.
Nice :)
It seems you missed a comment, that the current implementation is also
affected by clien
On 01/17/2012 07:35 PM, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
> Here's my review for the "logging hooks" patch queued for the 2012-01
> CommitFest by Martin Pihlak.
>
Thanks for reviewing!
> There's a minor whitespace problem. When declaring variables, and the
> data type is longer than 12 characters, just use
Dan Scales wrote:
> The second set of numbers is for a hard disk with write cache
> turned off, closer to internal hard disks of servers (people were
> quite interested in that result). These runs are for 50-warehouse
> 8-processor DBT2 60-minute run, with checkpoints every 5 minutes.
> The RA
On 20.12.2011 19:59, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 20.12.2011 11:20, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> 2011/12/20 Tomas Vondra :
>>>
>>> I haven't updated the docs yet - let's see if the patch is acceptable at
>>> all first.
>>
>> Again, without having reviewed the code, this looks like a feature
>> we'd want,
On mån, 2012-01-16 at 22:00 -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
> Adjusting that expectation is another side to pragmatism based on
> recent history I think needs to be acknowledged, but is unlikely to be
> improved on. 9.0 shipped on September 20. 9.1 shipped on September
> 11. If we say the last CF of ea
We have some numbers for 9.2 runs with and without double writes now. We
are still using the double-write patch that assumes checksums on data
pages, so checksums must be turned on for double writes.
The first set of runs are 50-warehouse 2-processor DBT2 60-minute run,
with checkpoints every 5 m
On 16/01/2012 23:40, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Greg Smith's message of lun ene 16 19:25:50 -0300 2012:
>> On 01/16/2012 03:48 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>>> I'll also point out that the process for *applying* a patch, if you
>>> don't subscribe to hackers and keep archives around on y
Excerpts from Matteo Beccati's message of mar ene 17 12:33:27 -0300 2012:
>
> On 16/01/2012 23:40, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > Excerpts from Greg Smith's message of lun ene 16 19:25:50 -0300 2012:
> >> On 01/16/2012 03:48 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >
> >>> I'll also point out that the process f
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar ene 17 14:24:05 -0300 2012:
>
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
> > On 01/16/2012 05:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments,
> >> one that will allow you to download patches separately. (Currently,
On 01/17/2012 11:50 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On mån, 2012-01-16 at 17:25 -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
The most reasonable answer to this is for people to publish a git repo
URL in addition to the "official" submission of changes to the list in
patch form.
Note that the original complaint was tha
On 17 January 2012 17:37, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> I found it very helpful to reduce wal_writer_delay in pgbench tests, when
> running with synchronous_commit=off. The reason is that hint bits don't get
> set until the commit record is flushed to disk, so making the flushes more
> frequent redu
Attached is the pg_test_timing utility portion of this submission,
broken out into its own patch. It's a contrib module modeled on
pg_test_fsync.
The documentation is still a bit rough, I'm not done with that yet. I
have included an example of good timing results, switching to a bad
clock s
On 17.01.2012 16:35, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 16 January 2012 08:11, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
I think it might be simpler if it wasn't the background writer that's
responsible for "driving" the group commit queue, but the backends
themselves. When a flush request comes in, you join the queue
Hi,
Here's my review for the "logging hooks" patch queued for the 2012-01
CommitFest by Martin Pihlak.
Submission review
The patch is in context diff format and applies fine. Tests are not
included and don't seem practical for this patch.
More documentation would always be nice, but as othe
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 01/16/2012 05:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments,
>> one that will allow you to download patches separately. (Currently,
>> attachments that have mime types other than text/plain are already
>> downlo
On 17/01/2012 18:10, Matteo Beccati wrote:
> On 17/01/2012 17:50, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>
>> Excerpts from Matteo Beccati's message of mar ene 17 12:33:27 -0300 2012:
>>> My proof of concept archive for the hackers ML site is still online, in
>>> case anyone has trouble downloading the patches or
On 17/01/2012 17:50, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Matteo Beccati's message of mar ene 17 12:33:27 -0300 2012:
>> My proof of concept archive for the hackers ML site is still online, in
>> case anyone has trouble downloading the patches or just wants to have
>> the full thread handy.
>
Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of mar ene 17 13:59:57 -0300 2012:
> It appears that the only way to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint
> is using ALTER TABLE. Is there no support in CREATE TABLE planned?
> That looks a bit odd.
There are no plans to do that AFAIR, though maybe you
On mån, 2012-01-16 at 14:46 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On mån, 2012-01-16 at 11:17 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> I don't see how setting indisvalid to false helps with this, because
> >> IIUC when a session sees indisvalid = false, it
It appears that the only way to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint
is using ALTER TABLE. Is there no support in CREATE TABLE planned?
That looks a bit odd.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/
Excerpts from Marti Raudsepp's message of mar ene 17 12:12:50 -0300 2012:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 04:28, Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
> > So... here's my first whack at solving this with some flexibility.
> >
> > The first thing I did was add hook points where immediate statement
> > logging happen
On 01/16/2012 05:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
It's expected that we'll get a more reasonable interface to attachments,
one that will allow you to download patches separately. (Currently,
attachments that have mime types other than text/plain are already
downloadable separately).
Are you rea
On mån, 2012-01-16 at 17:25 -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
> The most reasonable answer to this is for people to publish a git repo
> URL in addition to the "official" submission of changes to the list in
> patch form.
Note that the original complaint was that for the occasional reviewer,
the current s
On 01/17/2012 12:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, since I see other committers sending in patches the day after the
nominal commitfest deadline, I don't feel too bad about being a bit late
as well.
To clarify the fairness standard here: submitting a patch before the
CommitFest deadline, then addi
2012/1/17 Robert Haas :
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
>> The attached patch adds OAT_DROP object-access-hook around permission
>> checks of object deletion.
>> Due to the previous drop statement reworks, the number of places to
>> put this hook is limited to these six poin
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 04:28, Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
> So... here's my first whack at solving this with some flexibility.
>
> The first thing I did was add hook points where immediate statement
> logging happens "pre_exec" and those that present duration
> "post_exec". These should, with optim
Right now, psql \timing output only gives output for successful
queries. Is there any actual reason for this, or just a "it happened"?
In particular,I just had a very long run of a CREATE UNIQUE INDEX fail
pretty far in - and I would've really liked to have timing output for
that one even though i
On 20 December 2011 10:27, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Doing it in numeric should be perfectly fine. The only real reason to
> pick int8 over in this context would be performance, but it's not like
> this is something that's going to be called in really performance
> critical paths...
FYI, my group
On 16 January 2012 08:11, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> Impressive results. How about uploading the PDF to the community wiki?
Sure. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Group_commit .
> I think it might be simpler if it wasn't the background writer that's
> responsible for "driving" the group commit q
On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 01:33:06 PM Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 01:18:53 PM Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
> >> I would prefer to have an option that the user is able to tell on how
> >> much cores it should be shared.
On 01/17/2012 07:33 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 01:18:53 PM Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
I would prefer to have an option that the user is able to tell on how much
cores it should be shared. Something like --share-cor
Tom Lane writes:
> Anyway, I'm hoping to keep hacking at this for a couple more days before
> the CF gets into full swing, and hopefully arrive at something committable
> for 9.2. I'd really like to get this fixed in this cycle, since it's
> been a problem for several releases now.
>
> Comments?
On 17 January 2012 11:24, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> In the patch I sent, I did rearrange the sleeping logic. I think it's more
> readable the way it is now.
I have no objection to either your refinement of the sleeping logic,
nor that you moved some things in both the existing code and my patch
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 01:18:53 PM Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
>> I would prefer to have an option that the user is able to tell on how much
>> cores it should be shared. Something like --share-cores=N.
> Uhm. -j # does exactly that or am I
On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 01:18:53 PM Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
> I would prefer to have an option that the user is able to tell on how much
> cores it should be shared. Something like --share-cores=N.
Uhm. -j # does exactly that or am I missing your point?
Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers maili
Am 13.01.2012 22:50, schrieb Josh Berkus:
Hackers,
It occurs to me that I would find it quite personally useful if the
vacuumdb utility was multiprocess capable.
For example, just today I needed to manually analyze a database with
over 500 tables, on a server with 24 cores. And I needed to kn
Hello
I did review of this small patch
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1326055692.15293.15.ca...@vanquo.pezone.net
* This patch was applied without with one hunk and compiled without warnings
bash-4.2$ patch -p1 < autocompleta.patch
patching file src/bin/psql/tab-complete.c
Hunk #2 suc
On 17.01.2012 12:16, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 04.01.2012 17:05, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 4 January 2012 07:24, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
I think SetBufferCommitInfoNeedsSave() needs the same treatment as
MarkBufferDirty(). And it would probably be good to only set the
latch if
the buffer
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Martin Pihlak wrote:
> My approach was to add parent oid to the per-backend function stats
> structure - PgStat_BackendFunctionEntry. Also, I changed the hash key
> for that structure to (oid, parent) pair. This means that within the
> backend the function usage is
Excerpts from Greg Smith's message of lun ene 16 19:25:50 -0300 2012:
> On 01/16/2012 03:48 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > I'll also point out that the process for *applying* a patch, if you
> > don't subscribe to hackers and keep archives around on your personal
> > machine for months, is also very
hi,
> I started reading the spgist vacuum code last night, and didn't like it
> at all. I found a number of smaller issues, but it seems to me that
> the design is just fundamentally wrong. Unless I'm misunderstanding it,
> the approach is to recursively traverse the tree in sort of the same way
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> WALRestore process asynchronously executes restore_command while
>> recovery continues working.
>>
>> Overlaps downloading of next WAL file to reduce time delays in file
>> based archive r
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:04:06PM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Thanks for your fixes to the patch. Them looks correct to me. I did some
> fixes in the patch. The proof of some concepts is still needed. I'm going
> to provide it in a few days.
Your further fixes look good. Could you also an
On 04.01.2012 17:05, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 4 January 2012 07:24, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
I think SetBufferCommitInfoNeedsSave() needs the same treatment as
MarkBufferDirty(). And it would probably be good to only set the latch if
the buffer wasn't dirty already. Setting a latch that's al
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 04:52:36PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of lun ene 16 16:17:42 -0300 2012:
> > On 15.01.2012 06:49, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > --- 164,178
> > > #define HEAP_HASVARWIDTH0x0002/* has variable-width
> > > attrib
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 01:49:54AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> - I'm not sure that the multixact truncation code is sane on
> checkpoints. It might be that I need to tweak more the pg_control info
> we keep about truncation. The whole truncation thing needs more
> testing, too.
My largest out
Hello, This is revised and rebased version of the patch.
a. Old term `Add Tuple Function' is changed to 'Store
Handler'. The reason why not `storage' is simply length of the
symbols.
b. I couldn't find the place to settle PGgetAsCString() in. It is
removed and storeHandler()@dblink.c to
Hi!
Thanks for your fixes to the patch. Them looks correct to me. I did some
fixes in the patch. The proof of some concepts is still needed. I'm going
to provide it in a few days.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > I'm not sure about shared lossy counting module, because par
72 matches
Mail list logo
