On 01/24/2013 01:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alexander Law writes:
>> Please let me know if I can do something to get the bug fix
>> (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=902) committed.
> It's waiting on some Windows-savvy committer to pick it up, IMO.
I'm no committer, but I can
On 01/24/2013 01:50 AM, Phil Sorber wrote:
> This looks good to me now. Compiles and works as described.
Ready to go?
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1008
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Servi
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> The docs on bgworker twice refer to "HOT standby". I don't think that in
> either case, the "hot" needs emphasis, and if it does making it look like an
> acronym (one already used for something else) is probably not the way to do
> it.
I thin
The docs on bgworker twice refer to "HOT standby". I don't think that in
either case, the "hot" needs emphasis, and if it does making it look like
an acronym (one already used for something else) is probably not the way to
do it.
Patch to HEAD attached.
Cheers,
Jeff
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/bg
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Your point that the locking code doesn't quite cope with newly-masked
>> objects makes me feel that we could get away with not solving the case
>> for plan caching either. Or at least that we could put off the problem
>>
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 11:48 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Hari Babu
wrote:
>> Test scenario to reproduce:
>> 1. Start the server
>> 2. create the user as follows
>> ./psql postgres -c "create user user1 superuser login
>> password 'u
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:51 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Fujii Masao escribió:
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
>
> > >> Is it safe to write something in the directory other than data
> > >> directory
> > >> via SQL?
> > >>
> > >> postgres user usually has the wri
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 9:51 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:14 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> When I removed postgresql.auto.conf and restarted the server,
> >> I got the following warning message. This is not co
On 01/22/2013 06:43 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> This patch was in Needs Review status, but you committed it on 2013-01-17. I
> have marked it as such in the CF app.
Thankyou. There's a lot to keep up with :S
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7
On 01/24/2013 11:28 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 01/24/2013 09:38 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> The most notable difference is that I have no pre-VS2012 Microsoft
>> compilers installed and no SDKs installed by my explicit action. I
>> suggest assessing how the Framework64 directories get into your path
John R Pierce writes:
> On 1/23/2013 8:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> FWIW, in Fedora-land I see: ...
> I'd be far more interested in what is in RHEL and CentOS.Fedora,
> with its 6 month obsolescence cycle, is of zero interest to me for
> deploying database servers.
But of course Fedora is als
On 1/23/2013 8:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
FWIW, in Fedora-land I see:
F16: 2.1.6 (F16 will go out of support next month)
F17: 2.1.10 (F17 has been stable for 6+ months)
F18: 2.1.12 (F18 just went stable)
While requiring 2.1.10 today might be thought a tad leading-edge,
will that still
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 17.01.2013 23:20, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
>> In addition, I forgot to update minimum required version for libselinux;
>> (it also takes change in configure script).
> libselinux1 2.1.10 or newer is a pretty tall order. That's not in debian
> testing yet, for example.
Noah Misch writes:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:22:06AM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On balance, it would seem optimizing for this special case would
>> affect everybody negatively; not much, but enough. Which means we
>> should rekect this patch.
> I've failed to come up with a non-arbitrary rea
I agree, answering the question, whether the particular attempt of
starting a server succeeded or not, will need the current behaviour.
Now, question is which of these behaviours should be default?
Bruce, what if we make idempotent behaviour default and provide an
option for current behaviour?
On
On 01/24/2013 09:38 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> The most notable difference is that I have no pre-VS2012 Microsoft
> compilers installed and no SDKs installed by my explicit action. I
> suggest assessing how the Framework64 directories get into your path
> and trying without them. nm
A further update
On 01/24/2013 09:38 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> The most notable difference is that I have no pre-VS2012 Microsoft
compilers installed and no SDKs installed by my explicit action. I
suggest assessing how the Framework64 directories get into your path and
trying without them. nm
Interesting. The Frame
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:22:06AM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 24 December 2012 16:57, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Performance: Average of 3 runs of pgbench in tps
> > 9.3devel | with trailing null patch
> > --+--
> > 578.9872 | 573.4980
>
> On balance, it would
Hi Craig,
Thanks for testing.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 02:55:55PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> When building a tree with your patch applied using VS 2012 Express via a
> command line environment set up with:
>
>"c:\program files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio
> 11.0\VC\vcvarsall.bat" x86
Like
On 01/23/2013 05:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Of course, I have no evidence that that will happen. But it is a
really big piece of code, and therefore unless you are superman, it's
probably got a really large number of bugs. The scary thing is that
it is not as if we can say, well, this is a big
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> pgbench upstream:
> tps: 22275.941409
> space overhead: 0%
> pgbench logical-submitted
> tps: 16274.603046
> space overhead: 2.1%
> pgbench logical-HEAD (will submit updated version tomorrow or so):
> tps: 20853.341551
> space overhead: 2.3%
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Phil Sorber wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Phil Sorber writes:
>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:27:45PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> +1 for default timeout --- if this isn't l
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:42 AM, MauMau wrote:
> From: "Tom Lane"
>
>> Since we've fixed a couple of relatively nasty bugs recently, the core
>> committee has determined that it'd be a good idea to push out PG update
>> releases soon. The current plan is to wrap on Monday Feb 4 for public
>> ann
On 01/24/2013 03:23 AM, Brar Piening wrote:
>> On 01/23/2013 02:14 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>
>> How have you been testing VS2012 builds? In what environment?
>
> When I tested this patch the last time I've been using Windows 8 RTM
> (Microsoft Windows 8 Enterprise Evaluation - 6.2.9200 Build 9200)
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Phil Sorber writes:
>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:27:45PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
+1 for default timeout --- if this isn't like "ping" where you are
expecting to run indefinitely
Simon Riggs writes:
> On 23 January 2013 17:15, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2013-01-23 11:58:28 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> Can't we do better than that?
> "row level locks cannot be applied to the NULLable side of an outer join"
I think it should read "row-level locks cannot ...", but othe
Phil Sorber writes:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:27:45PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> +1 for default timeout --- if this isn't like "ping" where you are
>>> expecting to run indefinitely, I can't see that it's a good idea for it
>>> to sit ve
From: "Tom Lane"
Since we've fixed a couple of relatively nasty bugs recently, the core
committee has determined that it'd be a good idea to push out PG update
releases soon. The current plan is to wrap on Monday Feb 4 for public
announcement Thursday Feb 7. If you're aware of any bug fixes yo
Hi,
I decided to reply on the patches thread to be able to find this later.
On 2013-01-23 22:48:50 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> "logical changeset generation v4"
> This is a boatload of infrastructure for supporting logical replication, yet
> we have no code actually implementing logical re
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 09:56:48PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > (But, at least with the type of packaging I'm using in Fedora, he would
> > first have to go through a package downgrade/reinstallation process,
> > because the packaging provides no simple scripted way of manually
> > starting the
Hello
>
> I do that pretty often. A better approach, imv, would be making psql a
> bit more of a 'real' shell, with loops, conditionals, better variable
> handling, etc.
>
after a few years prototyping on this area I am not sure so this is
good idea. Maybe better to start some new console from s
Josh,
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote:
> As you know, there's a lot of people these days using SCHEMA for
> multi-tenant application partitioning. One of them pointed out to me
> that "schema" is missing from ALTER DEFAULT PRIVS; that is, there's no
> way for you to set default permissio
Heikki,
* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnakan...@vmware.com) wrote:
> FWIW, here's how I feel about some the patches. It's not an exhaustive list.
Thanks for going through them and commenting on them.
> "Event Triggers: Passing Information to User Functions (from 2012-11)"
> I don't care about this wh
On 17.01.2013 23:20, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
2013/1/16 Robert Haas:
This looks OK on a quick once-over, but should it update the
documentation somehow?
Documentation does not take so much description for type_transition
rules, so I just modified relevant description a bit to mention about
type_tra
On 01/23/2013 12:48 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 23 January 2013 17:15, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-01-23 11:58:28 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 01/23/2013 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Improve concurrency of foreign key locking
This error message change looks rather odd, and has my head
Folks,
As you know, there's a lot of people these days using SCHEMA for
multi-tenant application partitioning. One of them pointed out to me
that "schema" is missing from ALTER DEFAULT PRIVS; that is, there's no
way for you to set default permissions on a new schema. For folks using
schema for
On 23.01.2013 20:44, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
For all of that, I'm not sure that people failing to seek consensus
before coding is really so much of a problem as you seem to think.
For my part, I don't think the lack of consensus-finding before
submitti
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Phil Sorber wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>>> For all of that, I'm not sure that people failing to seek consensus
>>> before coding is really so much of a problem as you seem to think
On 2013-01-22 12:32:07 +, Amit kapila wrote:
> This closes all comments raised till now for this patch.
> Kindly let me know if you feel something is missing?
I am coming late to this patch, so bear with me if I repeat somethign
said elsewhere.
Review comments of cursory pass through the patc
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> For all of that, I'm not sure that people failing to seek consensus
>> before coding is really so much of a problem as you seem to think.
>
> For my part, I don't think the lack of consensus-fin
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 02:50:01PM -0500, Phil Sorber wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:27:45PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> Phil Sorber writes:
>> >> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 03:02:24PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 09:33:58AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
> >> wrote:
> >> > Thanks for commiting the fixes. About the
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> As a reminder, COPY FREEZE still does not issue any warning/notice if
> the freezing does not happen:
>
> Requests copying the data with rows already frozen, just as they
> would be after running the VACUUM FREEZE command.
>
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 09:33:58AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
>> wrote:
>> > Thanks for commiting the fixes. About the regression tests, I think
>> > you're right, but then I can't see how
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 02:50:01PM -0500, Phil Sorber wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:27:45PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Phil Sorber writes:
> >> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Robert Haas
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> [rhaas pgsql]$ p
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Applied with trivial editing, mostly from a pgindent run against
> modified files.
Applied back as far as 9.0. Before that code didn't match well
enough for it to seem safe to apply without many hours of
additional testing.
I have confirmed occurences of this problem at l
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:27:45PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Phil Sorber writes:
>> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Robert Haas
>> > wrote:
>> >> [rhaas pgsql]$ pg_isready -h www.google.com
>> >>
>>
>> > Do you think we should have a
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 02:40:45PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:15:27AM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 03:12:37PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > David Fetter wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:29:43PM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:15:27AM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 03:12:37PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > David Fetter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:29:43PM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > Please find attached a patch which implements t
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 09:33:58AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
> wrote:
> > Thanks for commiting the fixes. About the regression tests, I think
> > you're right, but then I can't see how to include such a test. Maybe you
> > could add the other one
On 01/23/2013 02:14 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
How have you been testing VS2012 builds? In what environment?
When I tested this patch the last time I've been using Windows 8 RTM
(Microsoft Windows 8 Enterprise Evaluation - 6.2.9200 Build 9200) and
Microsoft Visual Studio Express 2012 für Windows
2013/1/14 Tom Lane :
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> So far as I can tell, get_create_function_cmd (and lookup_function_oid
>>> too) were intentionally designed to not show their queries, and for that
>>> matter they go out of their way to produce te
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 09:00:25PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 23.01.2013 20:56, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 06:03:28PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> >>anyway, +1 for making this as default option. Going that path, would
> >>we be breaking backward compatibility? Ther
As a reminder, COPY FREEZE still does not issue any warning/notice if
the freezing does not happen:
Requests copying the data with rows already frozen, just as they
would be after running the VACUUM FREEZE command.
This is intended as a performance option for initial data loading
On 23.01.2013 20:56, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 06:03:28PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
anyway, +1 for making this as default option. Going that path, would
we be breaking backward compatibility? There might be scripts, (being
already used), which depend upon the current behavi
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:27:45PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Phil Sorber writes:
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> [rhaas pgsql]$ pg_isready -h www.google.com
> >>
>
> > Do you think we should have a default timeout, or only have one if
> > specified at the command li
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 06:03:28PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut writes:
> >> On 1/14/13 10:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Also it appears to me that the hunk at lines 812ff is changing the
> >>> default behavior, which is not w
On 24/01/13 07:45, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andres Freund escribió:
I somewhat dislike the fact that CONCURRENTLY isn't really concurrent
here (for the listeners: swapping the indexes acquires exlusive locks) ,
but I don't see any other naming being better.
REINDEX ALMOST CONCURRENTLY?
REINDEX
Andres Freund escribió:
> I somewhat dislike the fact that CONCURRENTLY isn't really concurrent
> here (for the listeners: swapping the indexes acquires exlusive locks) ,
> but I don't see any other naming being better.
REINDEX ALMOST CONCURRENTLY?
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2n
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> For all of that, I'm not sure that people failing to seek consensus
> before coding is really so much of a problem as you seem to think.
For my part, I don't think the lack of consensus-finding before
submitting patches is, in itself, a problem.
The
On 2013-01-15 18:16:59 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> OK. I am back to this patch after a too long time.
Dito ;)
> > > > * would be nice (but thats probably a step #2 thing) to do the
> > > > individual steps of concurrent reindex over multiple relations to
> > > > avoid too much overall wai
I just pushed this patch to the master branch. There was a
corresponding catversion bump and pg_control version bump. I have
verified that "make check-world" passes on my machine, as well as
isolation tests and pg_upgrade.
Tom Lane said at one point "this is too complex to maintain". Several
ti
On 01/23/2013 09:51 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
The only way to fix increasing bug counts is through more-comprehensive
regular testing. Currently we have regression/unit tests which cover
maybe 30% of our code. Performance testing is largely ad-hoc. We don't
require comprehensive acceptance test
Fujii Masao escribió:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> Is it safe to write something in the directory other than data
> >> directory
> >> via SQL?
> >>
> >> postgres user usually has the write permission for the configuration
> >> directory like /etc/postgresql?
> >
> >
On 01/23/2013 01:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tom Lane escribió:
Alexander Law writes:
Please let me know if I can do something to get the bug fix
(https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=902) committed.
It's waiting on some Windows-savvy committer to pick it up, IMO.
(FWIW, I
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Hari Babu wrote:
> Test scenario to reproduce:
> 1. Start the server
> 2. create the user as follows
> ./psql postgres -c "create user user1 superuser login
> password 'use''1'"
>
> 3. Take the backup with -R option as follo
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 03:12:37PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:29:43PM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > Please find attached a patch which implements the SQL standard
> > > UNNEST() WITH ORDINALITY.
> >
> > Added to CF4.
>
David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:29:43PM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > Please find attached a patch which implements the SQL standard
> > UNNEST() WITH ORDINALITY.
>
> Added to CF4.
Surely you meant CF 2013-Next (i.e. first commit of 9.4 cycle).
--
Álvaro Herrer
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:02:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter writes:
> > I've been working with Andrew Gierth (well, mostly he's been doing
> > the work, as usual) to add WITH ORDINALITY as an option for
> > set-returning functions. In the process, he found a minor
> > opportunity to
Tom Lane escribió:
> Alexander Law writes:
> > Please let me know if I can do something to get the bug fix
> > (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=902) committed.
>
> It's waiting on some Windows-savvy committer to pick it up, IMO.
> (FWIW, I have no objection to the patch as
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 01/23/2013 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >Improve concurrency of foreign key locking
>
> This error message change looks rather odd, and has my head spinning a bit:
>
> -errmsg("SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE cannot be
> applied to the nullable side
2013/1/23 Tom Lane :
> Pavel Stehule writes:
>> next related example
>
>> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION public.myleast(VARIADIC integer[])
>> RETURNS integer
>> LANGUAGE sql
>> AS $function$
>> select min(v) from unnest($1) g(v)
>> $function$
>
> The reason you get a null from that is that (1) unne
On 01/23/2013 09:08 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-01-23 11:44:29 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Yeah, and a lot more fairly-new developers who don't understand all the
>>> connections in the existing system. Let me just push back a bit here:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Jon Erdman
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Done. Attached.
> - --
> Jon T Erdman (aka StuckMojo)
> PostgreSQL Zealot
>
> On 01/22/2013 11:17 PM, Phil Sorber wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Jon Erdman
>> wrote:
>>
>>
On 23 January 2013 17:15, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-01-23 11:58:28 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> On 01/23/2013 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> >Improve concurrency of foreign key locking
>>
>> This error message change looks rather odd, and has my head spinning a bit:
>>
>> -
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2013-01-23 11:58:28 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> This error message change looks rather odd, and has my head spinning a bit:
>>
>> -errmsg("SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE cannot be applied to
>> the nullable side of an outer join")));
>> +
I get the following error when I try to compile just a specific binary
in src/bin/scripts:
gcc -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith
-Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels
-Wmissing-format-attribute -Wformat-security -fno-strict-aliasing
-fwrapv -fexcess-precision=standard reindexdb
Alexander Law writes:
> Please let me know if I can do something to get the bug fix
> (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=902) committed.
It's waiting on some Windows-savvy committer to pick it up, IMO.
(FWIW, I have no objection to the patch as given, but I am unqualified
to
Phil Sorber writes:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> [rhaas pgsql]$ pg_isready -h www.google.com
>>
> Do you think we should have a default timeout, or only have one if
> specified at the command line?
+1 for default timeout --- if this isn't like "ping" where you are
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 02:04:14PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus writes:
> >> IMHO that's the single most important task of a review.
>
> > Really? I'd say the most important task for a review is "does the patch
> > do what it says it does?". That is, if the patch is supposed to
> > impl
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Phil Sorber wrote:
>> Changing up the subject line because this is no longer a work in
>> progress nor is it pg_ping anymore.
>
> OK, I committed this. However, I have one suggestion. Maybe it would
> be a
On 2013-01-23 11:58:28 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 01/23/2013 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >Improve concurrency of foreign key locking
>
> This error message change looks rather odd, and has my head spinning a bit:
>
> -errmsg("SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE cannot be a
On 2013-01-23 11:44:29 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Yeah, and a lot more fairly-new developers who don't understand all the
> > connections in the existing system. Let me just push back a bit here:
> > based on the amount of time I've had to spe
Hello,
Please let me know if I can do something to get the bug fix
(https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=902) committed.
I would like to fix other bugs related to postgres localization, but I
am not sure yet how to do it.
Thanks in advance,
Alexander
18.10.2012 19:46, Alvaro
On 01/23/2013 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Improve concurrency of foreign key locking
This error message change looks rather odd, and has my head spinning a bit:
-errmsg("SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE cannot be applied
to the nullable side of an outer join")));
+
Pavel Stehule writes:
> next related example
> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION public.myleast(VARIADIC integer[])
> RETURNS integer
> LANGUAGE sql
> AS $function$
> select min(v) from unnest($1) g(v)
> $function$
The reason you get a null from that is that (1) unnest() produces zero
rows out for ei
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, that is probably the major hazard IMO too. The designs sketched
> in this thread would be sufficient to ensure that DDL in one session's
> temp schema wouldn't have to invalidate plans in other sessions --- but
> is that good enough?
>
> Y
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, and a lot more fairly-new developers who don't understand all the
> connections in the existing system. Let me just push back a bit here:
> based on the amount of time I've had to spend fixing bugs over the past
> five months, 9.2 was our w
Robert Haas writes:
> I agree with that, but I think Tom's concern is more with the cost of
> too-frequent re-planning. The most obvious case in which DDL might be
> frequent enough to cause an issue here is if there is heavy use of
> temporary objects - sessions might be rapidly creating and dro
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:14 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
>> When I removed postgresql.auto.conf and restarted the server,
>> I got the following warning message. This is not correct because
>> I didn't remove "auto.conf.d" from postgresql.conf.
2013/1/23 Robert Haas :
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
> wrote:
>> Really, live DDL is not that frequent, and when you do that, you want
>> transparent replanning. I can't see any use case where it's important to
>> be able to run DDL in a live application yet continue to oper
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Phil Sorber wrote:
> Changing up the subject line because this is no longer a work in
> progress nor is it pg_ping anymore.
OK, I committed this. However, I have one suggestion. Maybe it would
be a good idea to add a -c or -t option that sets the connect_timeou
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Phil Sorber wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Phil Sorber wrote:
>>> Attached is a patch that adds a note about the FATAL messages that
>>> appear in the logs if you don't pass a valid user or dbnam
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Phil Sorber wrote:
>> Attached is a patch that adds a note about the FATAL messages that
>> appear in the logs if you don't pass a valid user or dbname to PQping
>> or PQpingParams.
>>
>> This was requested in
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:25 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Amit Kapila
>> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:10 PM Zoltán Böszörményi wrote:
>> >> 2013-01-22 13:32 keltezéssel, Amit kapila írta:
>> >>
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Phil Sorber wrote:
> Attached is a patch that adds a note about the FATAL messages that
> appear in the logs if you don't pass a valid user or dbname to PQping
> or PQpingParams.
>
> This was requested in the pg_isready thread.
Can I counter-propose the attached,
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Jeevan Chalke
wrote:
> Yes.
>
> I guess my earlier patch, which was directly incrementing
> ControlFile->unloggedLSN counter was the concern as it will take
> ControlFileLock several times.
>
> In this version of patch I did what Robert has suggested. At start of t
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 23.01.2013 09:36, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The biggest problem is that I really don't care for the idea of
>>> contrib/pg_trgm being this cozy with the innards of regex_t.
>> The only option I see now is to
On 2013-01-23 10:18:50 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > With the (attached for convenience) patch applied you can do
> > # ALTER TABLE replication_metadata SET (treat_as_catalog_table = true);
> >
> > to enable this.
> > What I wonder about is:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> With the (attached for convenience) patch applied you can do
> # ALTER TABLE replication_metadata SET (treat_as_catalog_table = true);
>
> to enable this.
> What I wonder about is:
> * does anybody have a better name for the reloption?
IMHO,
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
