On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:50:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> There is one more (known) stop-ship problem in SPGiST, which I'd kind of
> like to get out of the way now before I let my knowledge of that code
> get swapped out again. This is that SPGiST is unsafe for use by hot
> standby slaves.
I su
On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 14:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I thought Jeff was parenthetically complaining about cases like A LEFT
> JOIN (B INNER JOIN C ON b.y = c.y) ON a.x && b.x. That presumably
> would require the parameterized-path stuff to have any chance of doing
> partial index scans over B.
Amit Kapila writes:
> The way I am telling was as below code.
> With this extra paths will get generated, but it will as well consider for
> joining c and d in query:
> select * from a, b, c, d where a.x = b.y and (a.z = c.c or a.z = d.d)
I think this would just be dead code as of HEAD. With th
Hello, this is new version of standby checkpoint_segments patch.
- xlog.c: Make StandbyMode shared.
- checkpointer.c: Use IsStandbyMode() to check if postmaster is
under standby mode.
regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
== My e-mail address has been changed sin
In function generate_join_implied_equalities_normal(), in which kind of
query it can have all three outer_members, inner_members, new_members set?
There is handling related to that in the same function down which I wanted
to understand.
I convinced that current patch has a problem, and will come up
with the new patch later.
> > I tried that at first. But I suppose the requirement here is 'if
> > reading segments comes via replication stream, enable throttling
> > by checkpoint_segments.' and WalRcvInProgress() seems fit to
>
On 17 April 2012 13:19, Greg Stark wrote:
> All in all I think it's handier to have a stable ORDER BY sort than an
> unstable one though. So I'm not necessarily opposed to it even if it
> means we're stuck using a stable sort indefinitely.
I think it might be useful to disguard the stability prop
So while testing this patch I've found out that there is a pretty nasty
bug in HEAD as well as in my current formulation of the patch. Here
is an example using the regression database:
select count(*) from
(tenk1 a join tenk1 b on a.unique1=b.unique2)
left join tenk1 c on a.unique2 = b.unique
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> However, ignoring that issue for the moment, this patch is making me
> uncomfortable. I have a vague recollection that we deliberately omitted
> ALTER EXTENSION OWNER because of security or definitional worries.
> (Dimitri, does that ring any bel
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Here's a patch for that.
> Looks sane on a quick once-over. I do wonder about the comment,
> though. If we add ALTER EXTENSION .. OWNER, should that try to change
> the ownership of the objects contained inside t
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié abr 18 13:05:03 -0300 2012:
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>> > Per bug #6593, REASSIGN OWNED fails when the affected role owns an
>> > extension. This would be triv
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié abr 18 13:05:03 -0300 2012:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Per bug #6593, REASSIGN OWNED fails when the affected role owns an
> > extension. This would be trivial to fix if extensions had support code
> > for ALTER EXTENS
Andrew Dunstan writes:
>>> That's one reason for that, but there are probably others in the way of
>>> making this fully portable and automatable.
>
> This test setup also appears to labor under the illusion that we live
> in a Unix-only world. And for no good reason that I can tell. The
> shell
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On tis, 2012-04-17 at 10:47 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> What's the preferred way to make it automatically tested as much as
>> possible? I know the buildfarm does not run "installcheck-world", so if
>> we want it there, it'd need a bit more code on the client side
I discovered when researching the issue of index-only scans and Hot
Standby that there's a bug (for which I'm responsible) in
lazy_scan_heap[1]. Actually, the code has been like this for a long
time, but I needed to change it when I did the crash-safe visibility
map work, and I didn't. The proble
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> The problem I've found with most tools is that they work reasonably
> well if you let them control the entire workflow. But when you want to
> do things your own way, and it doesn't match up with what they were
> originally designed to do,
On 04/18/2012 01:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
BTW, given our heavy reliance on email, let me put a word in here for
RT, which is 100% email-driven. RT has other limitations, but if your
goal is to never log into a web interface, it's hard to b
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> On 04/18/2012 11:56 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/18/12 11:53 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>>
>>> Lastly, there is a Denver PgDay in October. PgDay's are a great way to
>>> meet locals and enjoy a smaller community setting but still
On 04/18/2012 11:56 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 4/18/12 11:53 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Lastly, there is a Denver PgDay in October. PgDay's are a great way to
meet locals and enjoy a smaller community setting but still maintain top
notch content.
Date? Hopefully not the same time as pg.EU?
On 4/18/12 11:53 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Lastly, there is a Denver PgDay in October. PgDay's are a great way to
> meet locals and enjoy a smaller community setting but still maintain top
> notch content.
Date? Hopefully not the same time as pg.EU?
I'd like to go this year.
--
Josh Berkus
04/18/2012
PostgreSQL Conference Next 2012, in Denver from Jun 26th - 29th is
cancelled. If you are looking for another conference in this time frame
we suggest:
http://www.pgcon.org/
There are also other conferences coming up in the next 6 months:
http://www.postgresopen.org/
http://www.p
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> All,
>
> We have 2 fairly promising projects for FDW work for this Google Summer
> of code. One is for a Firebird FDW, and the more promising one is for a
> "document collection" FDW from a previous successful GSOC student.
>
> The problem is
Nagaraj,
> i am nagaraj, i am newbi in this database world. i required your help.
> 2 dyas back i formatted one of my client system. which is having postgresql
> 8.2 database & that was having data. but i am not taken backup of the data.
> 1) how to take the data from the formatted harddisk. ?
> 2
Hi team,
i am nagaraj, i am newbi in this database world. i required your help.
2 dyas back i formatted one of my client system. which is having postgresql
8.2 database & that was having data. but i am not taken backup of the data.
1) how to take the data from the formatted harddisk. ?
2) how many
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 19:17, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
wrote:
> On 04/17/2012 11:29 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04/17/2012 04:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Jay Levitt writes:
Greg Smith wrote:
> Tracking when and how a bug is backported to older versions is one
> hard part
>
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 16:08, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tis, 2012-04-17 at 10:52 -0400, Jay Levitt wrote:
>> Maybe I'm confused - Magnus et al, are we talking spammy issues/issue
>> comments/etc, or are we talking more about exposed email addresses?
>
> My github.com account currently has 4264
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 08:12, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> I think this cleraly outlines that we need to remember that there are
>> *two* different patterns that people are trying tosolve with the
>> bugtracker.
>
> Yeah, remember we drifted to this topic from discussion of manag
2012/4/18 Greg Stark
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I've been hacking away on a patch to do this, and attached is something
> > that I think is pretty close to committable.
>
> [..]Even when some of us don't
> comment on some of the longer, more technical emails, we're d
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've been hacking away on a patch to do this, and attached is something
> that I think is pretty close to committable.
I have nothing to add but I just wanted to say thank you for taking
the time to write up this explanation. Even when some of us
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> BTW, given our heavy reliance on email, let me put a word in here for
> RT, which is 100% email-driven. RT has other limitations, but if your
> goal is to never log into a web interface, it's hard to beat.
If your goal is to never log into a
On 04/17/2012 11:29 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 04/17/2012 04:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Jay Levitt writes:
>>> Greg Smith wrote:
Tracking when and how a bug is backported to older versions is one
hard part
of the problem here.
>>> That's a great point. Both GitHub and git i
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> 3. Otherwise, they drift forever in the bleakness of space.
Seems to me that this line, is pretty close to being T-shirt-worthy.
> wontfix. We don't need a system to help us ignore bug reports; our
>> existing process handles that with admi
All,
We have 2 fairly promising projects for FDW work for this Google Summer
of code. One is for a Firebird FDW, and the more promising one is for a
"document collection" FDW from a previous successful GSOC student.
The problem is, we don't have potential mentors for these. If you are
able to h
Robert, Peter, all:
>>> IME, bug trackers typically work best when used by a tightly
>>> integrated team.
>>
>> Well, very many loosely distributed open-source projects use bug
>> trackers quite successfully.
... most of them, actually.
>> Um, isn't half of the commitfest app about workflow? Pa
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> I tried that at first. But I suppose the requirement here is 'if
> reading segments comes via replication stream, enable throttling
> by checkpoint_segments.' and WalRcvInProgress() seems fit to
> check that.
If so, what if replication
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Emanuel Calvo
> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure what you're unhappy about. It seems that the query
>>> planner picked the fastest plan (a sequential scan) and then when you
>>> disabled that it picked the second-fa
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Emanuel Calvo wrote:
>> I'm not sure what you're unhappy about. It seems that the query
>> planner picked the fastest plan (a sequential scan) and then when you
>> disabled that it picked the second-fastest plan (an index-only scan).
>>
>> The index-only scan wou
El día 18 de abril de 2012 18:17, Robert Haas escribió:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Emanuel Calvo
> wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I'm one of the nightly sources of 9.2devel. I was trying some simple
>> queries and I realized something:
>>
>> stuff=# explain (analyze true, costs true, buffers
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Emanuel Calvo wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm one of the nightly sources of 9.2devel. I was trying some simple
> queries and I realized something:
>
> stuff=# explain (analyze true, costs true, buffers true, timing true,
> verbose true) select count(i) from lot_of_value
Hi guys,
I'm one of the nightly sources of 9.2devel. I was trying some simple
queries and I realized something:
stuff=# explain (analyze true, costs true, buffers true, timing true,
verbose true) select count(i) from lot_of_values;
Q
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Per bug #6593, REASSIGN OWNED fails when the affected role owns an
> extension. This would be trivial to fix if extensions had support code
> for ALTER EXTENSION / OWNER, but they don't. So the only back-patchable
> fix right now seems to
Excerpts from Tom Lanyon's message of mié abr 18 12:44:11 -0300 2012:
> Hi all,
>
> To satisfy my own curiosity, I was trying to find where 8.4 kicks into a
> backwards scan of the data file during (auto-)vacuuming.
>
> This appears to be repair_frag() in backend/commands/vacuum.c, but only
>
Hello,
Windows environment, has a problem in installing postgres in the Program
Files folder? I have this doubt because Windows works with locking system to
this folder.
On 04/18/2012 11:29 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On ons, 2012-04-18 at 13:33 +0300, Alex Shulgin wrote:
I wonder why do people keep complaining how their bug tracker of
choice sucks, instead of doing something about that.
Lack of time, and to some degree a lack of clari
Hi all,
To satisfy my own curiosity, I was trying to find where 8.4 kicks into a
backwards scan of the data file during (auto-)vacuuming.
This appears to be repair_frag() in backend/commands/vacuum.c, but only appears
to be called by a FULL vacuum. Autovacuum, however, appears to explicitly on
Hackers,
Per bug #6593, REASSIGN OWNED fails when the affected role owns an
extension. This would be trivial to fix if extensions had support code
for ALTER EXTENSION / OWNER, but they don't. So the only back-patchable
fix right now seems to be to throw an error on REASSIGN OWNED when the
user
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2012-04-18 at 13:33 +0300, Alex Shulgin wrote:
>> I wonder why do people keep complaining how their bug tracker of
>> choice sucks, instead of doing something about that.
>
> Lack of time, and to some degree a lack of clarity of what they
> want out of the thing.
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think it would be a good idea for UPDATE and DELETE to expose
>> a LIMIT option, but I can't really see the virtue in making that
>> functionality available only through SPI.
>
> FWIW, I'm not excited about that. You can get well-defined beha
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> The size hint I chose is fairly arbitrary. Any suggestions for principled
> alternatives?
Based on your test results, it doesn't seem like it matters very much
what you put in there, so I'm inclined to think that num_mcelem is
fine. I thought
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié abr 18 11:47:37 -0300 2012:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > I'd suggest backpatching the ReassignOwnedStmt() bits; the wrong code could
> > produce crashes. The rest are for master only.
>
> Done, in the manner you suggest.
Pa
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> I'd suggest backpatching the ReassignOwnedStmt() bits; the wrong code could
> produce crashes. The rest are for master only.
Done, in the manner you suggest.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2012-04-18 at 08:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> It's very tempting to assume that the problem we're trying to solve
>> must already have been well-solved by someone else, and therefore we
>> ought to use their thing instead of in
On 04/18/2012 10:03 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On ons, 2012-04-18 at 09:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
My vote is to revert this altogether and leave it be. In the
alternative, make it an error.
You mean in HEAD too? I don't agree with that, for sure. What this
patch
On ons, 2012-04-18 at 13:33 +0300, Alex Shulgin wrote:
> I wonder why do people keep complaining how their bug tracker of
> choice sucks, instead of doing something about that.
Lack of time, and to some degree a lack of clarity of what they want out
of the thing. (Most people are very clear on wh
On ons, 2012-04-18 at 08:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> It's very tempting to assume that the problem we're trying to solve
> must already have been well-solved by someone else, and therefore we
> ought to use their thing instead of inventing our own. But that
> presumes that our problem is exactl
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Okay, patch attached.
Committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://
On tis, 2012-04-17 at 10:52 -0400, Jay Levitt wrote:
> Maybe I'm confused - Magnus et al, are we talking spammy issues/issue
> comments/etc, or are we talking more about exposed email addresses?
My github.com account currently has 4264 notifications in the inbox.
Almost all of those are spam, gro
On ons, 2012-04-18 at 09:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > My vote is to revert this altogether and leave it be. In the
> > alternative, make it an error.
>
> You mean in HEAD too? I don't agree with that, for sure. What this
> patch is accomplishing is to make sure that
On tis, 2012-04-10 at 17:48 -0700, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> > Hmm, but now you've set it up so that you can complete ALTER ROLE
> foo
> > WITH WITH. Were you aware of that?
>
> D'oh, I overlooked that. Attached is v2: the diff is a tad lengthier
> now, but that should fix it.
Committed.
--
S
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> My vote is to revert this altogether and leave it be. In the
> alternative, make it an error.
You mean in HEAD too? I don't agree with that, for sure. What this
patch is accomplishing is to make sure that the less-commonly-used
programs have similar command-line-pars
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> At the same time, I think we'd likely be a lot better off squirting this
>> data into bugzilla or another standard tracker, instead of building our
>> own infrastructure.
>
> I'm somewhat doubtful.
Me, too.
It's very tempting to assume t
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> That's probably one reason people aren't jumping on this. Because
>> there is no tracker out there that people actually *like*...
>
> I think this is a point worth serious thought.
I wonder why do people keep comp
>> Um ... wasn't that well enough explained already?
Yes, it was well explained and I understood also, but what I wanted to
understand the solution with which you have resolved the problem.
The way I am telling was as below code.
With this extra paths will get generated, but it will as well cons
On tis, 2012-04-17 at 19:19 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> It was discussed. I think the previous behaviour is a bug. It can't be
> sane to be allowed to do:
>
> initdb -D foo bar
It's debatable whether it should be allowed. I don't see anything wrong
with it. After all, later arguments usu
64 matches
Mail list logo
