Gra*vydas Valeika wrote:
>> This is because PostgreSQL 9.1 added the feature of simple
>> checking of functional dependencies for GROUP BY. The manual of
>> 9.1 explains quite well when PostgreSQL considers there to be a
>> functional dependency.
>>
>> "When GROUP BY is present, it is not valid f
Simon Riggs writes:
> I think we should apply the patch to return the correct SQLCODE in all
> cases, even if its supposedly not possible.
[ shrug... ] My opinion about that has not changed. Those are internal
sanity checks, and as such, ERRCODE_INTERNAL_ERROR is exactly the right
thing for the
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 05:18:31PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of mar ene 17 03:21:28 -0300 2012:
> > On 16.01.2012 21:52, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > I was initially thinking that pg_multixact should return the
> > > empty set if requested members of
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> In sepgsql side, it determines a case to apply permission checks
> according to the contextual information; that is same technique
> when we implemented create permission.
> Thus, it could checks db_xxx:{drop} permission correctly.
Why do we
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 09:46:20AM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> >
> > pgstattuple()'s decision to treat half-dead pages like deleted pages is
> > better. ?That transient state can only end in the page's deletion.
> >
>
> the only page in that
>
>
> This is because PostgreSQL 9.1 added the feature of simple checking of
> functional dependencies for GROUP BY. The manual of 9.1 explains quite well
> when PostgreSQL considers there to be a functional dependency.
>
> "When GROUP BY is present, it is not valid for the SELECT list expressions
On 2012-01-19 00:25, Gražvydas Valeika wrote:
In PG 9.0 this script complains that: column "aaa.something" must appear
in the GROUP BY clause or be used in an aggregate function. Sorry, don't
have 9.0 at my hands, but error message is similar to quoted.
Same error is raised in 9.1 when ', constra
Hi,
accidentally found a our sql typo, which runs without errors on pg 9.1, but
raises error on 9.0. It seems to me, that 9.0 behaviour was correct.
Reproducing case:
create table aaa(id integer NOT NULL, something double precision,
constraint pk_aaa primary key (id));
insert into aaa values (1,
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Nikhil Sontakke wrote:
>> >> 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 y
hi,
> On 13.01.2012 06:24, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>> gistVacuumUpdate was removed when old-style VACUUM FULL was removed.
>> i wonder why.
>> it was not practical and REINDEX is preferred?
>>
>> anyway, the removal seems incomplete and there are some leftovers:
>> F_TUPLES_DELETED
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Can I just check with you that the only review comment is a one line
> change? Seems better to make any additional review comments in one go.
No, I haven't done a full review yet - I just noticed that right at
the outset and wanted to be sure
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> 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:
>>> >>
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> 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 r
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 22:56, Martin Pihlak wrote:
> We need to keep the "if" separate
> though -- the hook might want to omit the message from server
> log so the "output_to_server" needs to be rechecked.
Oh, yes makes sense.
The updated patch looks good, marking as 'Ready for Committer'
Rega
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Huh, isn't it simpler to just pass the triggers the parse tree *after*
> parse analysis? I don't understand what you're doing here.
I didn't realize that the parse analysis is in fact done from within
standard_ProcessUtility() directly, which means your suggestion is
ind
On Jan 18, 2012, at 3:49 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> On 01/17/2012 09:00 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> Could we expose both?
>>
>> On our systems writes are extremely cheap... we don't do a ton of them
>> (relatively speaking), so they tend to just fit into BBU cache. Reads on the
>> other hard are a lot
On 01/17/2012 11:40 PM, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
> It seems you missed a comment, that the current implementation is also
> affected by client_min_messages. I think that being affected by
> client-specific settings is surprising. I would put the
> if(emit_log_hook) inside the existing if(edata->output
On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 08:31:49 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Dimitri Fontaine writes:
> > We can easily enough copy the parse tree and do another round of parse
> > analysis on it only when some command triggers are going to get called.
> > Is the cost of doing so acceptable?
>
> It's not the cos
> 9.2 + DW patch
> ---
> FPW off FPW on DW on/FPW off
> CK on CK on CK on
> one disk: 11078 10394 3296 [1G shared_buffers, 8G RAM]
> sep log disk: 13605 12015 3412
>
> one disk: 7731 66
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> On mån, 2012-01-16 at 22:59 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> So who's going to work on a patch? Peter, are you? If not, we should
>>> add it to the TODO list.
>
>> Not at this very moment, but maybe in a few weeks.
>
Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of mar ene 17 03:21:28 -0300 2012:
>
> On 16.01.2012 21:52, 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:
> >>> - pg_upgrade bits are
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On mån, 2012-01-16 at 22:59 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> So who's going to work on a patch? Peter, are you? If not, we should
>> add it to the TODO list.
> Not at this very moment, but maybe in a few weeks.
BTW, it strikes me that maybe the coding should work abo
On 18 January 2012 19:40, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2012-01-04 at 13:44 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I'm not thrilled about that either. Especially since they seem to be
>> adding more and more warnings that are harder and harder to work
>> around for issues that are less and less importa
On mån, 2012-01-16 at 22:59 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun ene 16 12:27:03 -0300 2012:
> >
> > Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > > Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of dom ene 15 10:00:03 -0300
> > > 2012:
> > >> On ons, 2011-12-28 at 14:35 -0500, Tom Lane
On ons, 2012-01-04 at 13:44 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm not thrilled about that either. Especially since they seem to be
> adding more and more warnings that are harder and harder to work
> around for issues that are less and less important. Unimportant
> warnings that are easily avoidable ar
On tis, 2012-01-03 at 21:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I see no point in -Werror whatsoever. If you aren't examining the make
> output for warnings, you're not following proper development practice
> IMO. gcc is not the only tool we use in the build process, so if you
> are relying on -Werror to ca
Dimitri Fontaine writes:
> We can easily enough copy the parse tree and do another round of parse
> analysis on it only when some command triggers are going to get called.
> Is the cost of doing so acceptable?
It's not the costs I'm worried about so much as the side effects ---
locks and so forth
On ons, 2012-01-04 at 00:39 +, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> This should work:
>
> ./configure --prefix=/home/peter/pgsql CFLAGS="-Werror
> -Wno-error=unused-but-set-variable"
>
> However, it does not (with or without the -Wno-error):
>
> checking whether getpwuid_r takes a fifth argument... no
>
On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 08:17:36 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Dimitri Fontaine's message of mié ene 18 16:03:29 -0300 2012:
> > At the moment the trigger functions are called from
> > standard_ProcessUtility() and are given the parse tree as handed over to
> > that function, befo
On lör, 2012-01-07 at 16:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > I suggest that we change PostgresMain(), PostmasterMain(), BackendRun(),
> > WalSenderMain(), and WalSndLoop() to return void as well.
>
> I agree this code is not very consistent or useful, but one question:
> what
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On sön, 2012-01-15 at 01:37 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Surely this will fail entirely on most non-gcc compilers?
> No, because __attribute__() is defined to empty for other compilers. We
> use this pattern already.
Oh, duh. In that case my only objection to doing it
Excerpts from Dimitri Fontaine's message of mié ene 18 16:03:29 -0300 2012:
> At the moment the trigger functions are called from
> standard_ProcessUtility() and are given the parse tree as handed over to
> that function, before the parse analysis.
>
> We can easily enough copy the parse tree an
On sön, 2012-01-15 at 08:14 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> It would possibly have some documentary value too. Just looking very
> quickly at Peter's patch, I don't really understand his assertion that
> this would significantly butcher the code. The worst effect would be
> that in a few cases we'
On sön, 2012-01-15 at 01:37 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > I see that in some places our code already uses #ifdef
> > USE_ASSERT_CHECKING, presumably to hide similar issues. But in most
> > cases using this would significantly butcher the code. I found that
> > adding __at
Tom Lane writes:
>> create table foo (id serial, foo integer default 1, primary key(id));
>
> That needs to go through transformCreateStmt(). The comments at the
> head of parse_utilcmd.c might be informative.
Indeed, thanks for the heads up here.
> While I've not looked at your patch, I can'
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mié ene 18 13:27:40 -0300 2012:
>
> On 01/18/2012 11:12 AM, Martin Pihlak wrote:
> > On 01/18/2012 03:56 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> or syslog process (if you use syslog). So ISTM that there is no
> >> guarantee that the order of log messages processed by
On 01/18/2012 11:12 AM, Martin Pihlak wrote:
On 01/18/2012 03:56 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
or syslog process (if you use syslog). So ISTM that there is no
guarantee that the order of log messages processed by the
hook is same as that of messages written to the log file. For
example, imagine the c
On 01/18/2012 03:56 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> or syslog process (if you use syslog). So ISTM that there is no
> guarantee that the order of log messages processed by the
> hook is same as that of messages written to the log file. For
> example, imagine the case where two backends call EmitErrorRepor
On 07.01.2012 02:15, Dan Ports wrote:
There's a corner case in the SSI cleanup code that isn't handled
correctly. It can arise when running workloads that are comprised
mostly (but not 100%) of READ ONLY transactions, and can corrupt the
finished SERIALIZABLEXACT list, potentially causing a segfa
On 01/17/2012 11:13 AM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> Since you only care about the parentfuncid in one level, it looks like
> you will only be able to get a total call graph of all possible
> function calls, and not each unique call graph per transaction.
True, for my purposes (function dependencies and
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 01:43, Scott Mead wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Scott Mead wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Greg Smith
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 01/12/2012 11:57 AM, Scott Mead wrote:
> >
On 13.01.2012 06:24, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
hi,
gistVacuumUpdate was removed when old-style VACUUM FULL was removed.
i wonder why.
it was not practical and REINDEX is preferred?
anyway, the removal seems incomplete and there are some leftovers:
F_TUPLES_DELETED
F_DELETED
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
>
> pgstattuple()'s decision to treat half-dead pages like deleted pages is
> better. That transient state can only end in the page's deletion.
>
the only page in that index has 200 records (all live 0 dead) using
half the page size (which is a
Dimitri Fontaine writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> It doesn't, and it shouldn't have to. If those nodes get to the
>> rewriter then somebody forgot to apply parse analysis. What's your test
>> case?
> I'm trying to rewrite the command string from the parse tree, and the
> simple example that I use
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 18.01.2012 07:49, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> 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
> $ pgbench --help
> pgbench is a benchmarking tool for PostgreSQL.
>
> Usage:
> pgbench [OPTIONS]... [DBNAME]
>
> Initialization options:
> -i invokes initialization mode using COPY
> -I invokes initialization mode using INSERTs
sounds usefull.
what about a long extra opti
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 01:43, Scott Mead wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Scott Mead wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/12/2012 11:57 AM, Scott Mead wrote:
Pretty delayed, but please find the attached patch that addresses all
On 01/17/2012 09:00 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
Could we expose both?
On our systems writes are extremely cheap... we don't do a ton of them
(relatively speaking), so they tend to just fit into BBU cache. Reads on the
other hard are a lot more expensive, at least if they end up actually hitting
disk
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 06:28, Noah Misch wrote:
> 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
Done and applied.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Matthew Draper wrote:
>
> I just remembered to make time to advance this from WIP to proposed
> patch this week... and then worked out I'm rudely dropping it into the
> last commitfest at the last minute. :/
The patch applies clean against master but compiles with
Tom Lane writes:
> 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,
On 18.01.2012 07:49, Fujii Masao wrote:
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 in
On 17/01/12 18:06, Tom Lane wrote:
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.
Co
53 matches
Mail list logo
