On Thursday, October 04, 2012 8:40 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 03.10.2012 18:15, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > 35.WalSenderMain(void)
> > {
> > ..
> > +if (walsender_shutdown_requested)
> > +ereport(FATAL,
> > +
> (errcode(ERRCODE_ADMIN_SHUTDOWN),
> > +
I wrote:
> I've seen this warning in recent Fedora builds, though not on my F16
> production box. Some googling suggests the locution
> #if __OPTIMIZE__
> #define _FORTIFY_SOURCE 2
> #endif
> but I've not tested that.
A bit later: testing on an F17 box (glibc-2.15-56.fc17.x86_64)
confirms Peter
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 17:05 +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> /usr/include/features.h:314:4: warning: #warning _FORTIFY_SOURCE
>> requires compiling with optimization (-O) [-Wcpp]
> Which glibc version is this? (Run /lib/libc.so)
I've seen this warning in recent Fedora
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Thursday, October 04, 2012 04:51:29 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> I can understand hesitation around that.. I would like to make sure I
> understand the problem correctly. When we get to the point where we switch
> indexes we should be in the follow
On Thursday, October 04, 2012 04:51:29 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark writes:
> > I'm a bit puzzled why we're so afraid of swapping the relfilenodes
> > when that's what the current REINDEX does.
>
> Swapping the relfilenodes is fine *as long as you have exclusive lock*.
> The trick is to make i
On Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:58:53 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
> > On 4 October 2012 17:23, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> >> Perhaps we could make walsenders even more like regular backends than
> >> what I was proposing, so that the replication commands are parsed and
> >> execut
Simon Riggs writes:
> On 4 October 2012 17:23, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Perhaps we could make walsenders even more like regular backends than what I
>> was proposing, so that the replication commands are parsed and executed just
>> like regular utility commands. However, that'd require some t
On 4 October 2012 17:23, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04.10.2012 19:00, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
>>>
>>> So I propose the attached patch. I made small changes to postgres.c to
>>> make it call exec_replication_command() instead of exec_simple_query(),
>>> and reject exte
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 03.10.2012 18:15, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 4:21 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmm, should a base backup be aborted when the standby is promoted? Does
>>> the promotion render the backup corrupt?
>>
>
El 03/10/2012 21:38, "Tom Lane" escribió:
>
> Does anyone have an objection to this? I can imagine cases where the
> check would reject values that would get accepted at runtime, if the
> type's input function was sensitive to the phase of the moon or
> something. But it doesn't seem very probab
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> I was wondering recently if there was any command line tool that
> utilized PQping() or PQpingParams(). I searched the code and couldn't
> find anything and was wondering if there was any interest to have
> something like this included? I wrot
On 04.10.2012 19:00, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
So I propose the attached patch. I made small changes to postgres.c to
make it call exec_replication_command() instead of exec_simple_query(),
and reject extend query protocol, in a WAL sender process. A lot of code
related to hand
2012-10-04 16:43 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta:
Boszormenyi Zoltan writes:
Did you think about something like the attached code?
Or rather this one, which fixes a bug so fillPGconn() and PQconninfo() are
symmetric and work for "requiressl".
That's incredibly ugly. I'm not sure where we should k
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> So I propose the attached patch. I made small changes to postgres.c to
> make it call exec_replication_command() instead of exec_simple_query(),
> and reject extend query protocol, in a WAL sender process. A lot of code
> related to handling the main command loop an
I wrote:
> To produce a really useful cursor for this type of situation I think
> we would have to do something like this:
> #define YYLLOC_DEFAULT(Current, Rhs, N) \
> do { \
> int i;
> (Current) = -1; \
> for (i = 1; i <= (N); i++)
> {
> (Current)
Reading this mailing list via newsgroup (news.postgresql.org port
119) I can see that last "legitimate" message is from
29 August since then only "RUSSIAN" posts are present.
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
--
cpp-today.blogspot.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.or
On 03.10.2012 18:15, Amit Kapila wrote:
35.WalSenderMain(void)
{
..
+if (walsender_shutdown_requested)
+ereport(FATAL,
+(errcode(ERRCODE_ADMIN_SHUTDOWN),
+ errmsg("terminating r
Boszormenyi Zoltan writes:
>> Did you think about something like the attached code?
> Or rather this one, which fixes a bug so fillPGconn() and PQconninfo() are
> symmetric and work for "requiressl".
That's incredibly ugly. I'm not sure where we should keep the "R"
information, but shoehorning
Robert Haas writes:
> Just to ask a possibly stupid question: why is attempting to a REVOKE
> a non-existent privilege anything other than an ERROR?
Because the SQL standard says so?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> xmalloc, xstrdup, etc. are pretty common names for functions that do
>> alloc-or-die (another possible naming scheme ;-) ). The naming
>> pg_malloc etc. on the other hand suggests that the allocation is being
>> done
> On Wednesday, October 03, 2012 8:45 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 4:21 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Thanks for the thorough review! I committed the xlog.c refactoring
> patch
> > now. Attached is a new version of the main patch, comments on specific
> > points be
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 02:31:29PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> It'd really help if REVOKE consistently raised warnings when it didn't
>> actually revoke anything.
>
> +1
>
> This will invite the same mixed feelings as the CREATE x IF NOT EXISTS
> -Original Message-
> From: pgsql-bugs-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-bugs-
> ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Amit kapila
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 3:43 PM
> To: Heikki Linnakangas
> Cc: Fujii Masao; pgsql-b...@postgresql.org; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [
2012-10-04 12:42 keltezéssel, Boszormenyi Zoltan írta:
2012-10-04 06:47 keltezéssel, Boszormenyi Zoltan írta:
2012-10-04 05:24 keltezéssel, Peter Eisentraut írta:
On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 18:15 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
The second generation of this work is now attached and contains a new
> On Thursday, October 04, 2012 12:54 PM Heikki Linnakangas
> On 03.10.2012 19:03, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Any comments/suggestions regarding performance/functionality test?
>
> Hmm. Doing a lot of UPDATEs concurrently can be limited by the
> WALInsertLock, which each inserter holds while copying t
2012-10-04 06:47 keltezéssel, Boszormenyi Zoltan írta:
2012-10-04 05:24 keltezéssel, Peter Eisentraut írta:
On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 18:15 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
The second generation of this work is now attached and contains a new
feature as was discussed and suggested by Magnus Hagande
On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 1:56 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 02.10.2012 10:36, Amit kapila wrote:
> On Monday, October 01, 2012 4:08 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> So let's think how this should ideally work from a user's point of view.
>>> I think there should be just two settings: walsende
On 03.10.2012 18:15, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 4:21 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Hmm, should a base backup be aborted when the standby is promoted? Does
the promotion render the backup corrupt?
I think currently it does so. Pls refer
1.
do_pg_stop_backup(char *labelfile,
On 03.10.2012 19:03, Amit Kapila wrote:
Any comments/suggestions regarding performance/functionality test?
Hmm. Doing a lot of UPDATEs concurrently can be limited by the
WALInsertLock, which each inserter holds while copying the WAL record to
the buffer. Reducing the size of the WAL records,
29 matches
Mail list logo
