On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 16 June 2013 17:25, Samrat Revagade wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Simon Riggs
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> So I strongly object to calling this patch anything to do with
> >> "failback safe". You simply don't have e
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 15 June 2013 12:25, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> > additionally it *could* have the property Simon proposed earlier
> > of *uncompressed* pages having some predetermined size, so we
> > could retain optimisations of substring() even on compressed TOAST
> > values.
>
> That wa
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:48:38AM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:09:19AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > David Fetter writes:
> > > Per suggestions and lots of help from Andrew Gierth, please find
> > > attached a patch to clean up the call sites for FuncCall nodes, which
> >
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 01:29:41PM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 01:09:30PM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 06:45:31AM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:59:22PM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > Per sug
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Jon Nelson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> On Sat, 2013-05-25 at 13:55 -0500, Jon Nelson wrote:
..
>> * You check for the presence of posix_fallocate at configure time, but
>> don't #ifdef the call site. It looks like you removed th
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> I've just done a quick review of the source, as I've been hacking in
> pgbench myself.
>
> I think that the feature makes sense.
>
> About the details of the patch:
>
> (1) Some changes in the patch are unrelated to the purpose of the patc
Hi,
Did some basic checks on this patch. List-wise feedback below.
- Removed unnecessary extra-lines: Yes
- Cleanly applies to Git-Head: Yes
- Documentation Updated: Yes
- Tests Updated: Yes
- All tests pass: Yes. (But see Note below)
- Does it Work (CREATE AGGREGATE): Yes
- Does it Work (CREATE
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-05-25 at 13:55 -0500, Jon Nelson wrote:
>> Ack. I've revised the patch to always have the GUC (for now), default
>> to false, and if configure can't find posix_fallocate (or the user
>> disables it by way of pg_config_manual.h) th
On Sunday, June 16, 2013 11:43 PM Josh Berkus wrote:
> CommitFest 1 for the 9.4 development cycle (CF 2013-06) has begun.
>
> To kick off 9.4 with a big rush, we have a total of 98 patches, 80 of
> which are currently "needs review". That means we need lots of
> reviewers! Fortunately, many of y
>> I agree that the FSM behaviour shouldn't be linked to index existence.
>> IMHO that should be a separate table parameter, WITH (fsm_mode = append)
>> Index only scans would also benefit from that.
>
> -1 ... I cannot believe that such a parameter would ever get turned on
> in production by any
On 06/15/2013 11:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> There's a nearby thread complaining bitterly about our willingness to
> create hard-to-use, hard-to-tune "features". In its current form,
> this will be another one of those.
For what it's worth, I was going for "usability concerns", not
"complaint"... and
Hackers,
Amit posted a new version of this patch on January 23rd. But last
comment on it by Tom is "not sure everyone wants this".
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=905
... so, what's the status of this patch?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
Josh,
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote:
> * I'd like a committer to take responsibility for the large set of
> Regression Test additions in this CF.
I was already considering handling this. I'll do what I can this week,
after that I'll be on vacation for most of the following 2 weeks. On
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 14 June 2013 17:05, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Attached is a patch for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY
>> for 9.4 CF1. The goal of this patch is to allow a refresh
>> without interfering with concurrent reads, using transactional
>> semantics.
>
> Is there a reason t
What activity would you expect?
A patch which applies cleanly to git HEAD. This one doesn't for me,
although I'm not really sure why, I don't see any obvious conflicts.
Please find attached a freshly generated patch against current master.
--
Fabien.diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_ca
On 2013-06-16 17:27:56 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Another thought is that rather than trying to compensate for that effect in
> the checkpoint scheduler, could we avoid the sudden rush of full-page images
> in the first place? The current rule for when to write a full page image is
> conser
On 2013-06-16 11:54:24 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> In 9.3 HEAD I am getting what seems to be spurious wrap-around shutdowns.
>
>
> postgres=# SELECT datname, datfrozenxid, age(datfrozenxid) FROM pg_database;
>
> datname | datfrozenxid |age
> ---+--+---
> templa
On 2013-06-17 04:20:03 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Please find attached the latest versions of REINDEX CONCURRENTLY for the 1st
> > commit fest of 9.4:
> > - 20130606_1_remove_reltoastidxid_v9.patch, removing reltoastidxi
It would be great. I'm working at the moment on porting integer operations
to unsigned types, and the code is essentially a small number of functions,
repeated for every combination of integer types.
In C++ it could be simply one single set of template functions. Less code;
less bugs.
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
> I saw you added this 2-year old thread to the 2013-06 commitfest, but I
>> don't see any new activity. Huh?
>>
>
> What activity would you expect?
A patch which applies cleanly to git HEAD. This one doesn't for me,
althou
Hello,
I saw you added this 2-year old thread to the 2013-06 commitfest, but I don't
see any new activity. Huh?
What activity would you expect? I sent the patch 2 years ago on the list,
and now that I figured out that there is a "submitted patch list" open for
consideration I added the corr
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please find attached the latest versions of REINDEX CONCURRENTLY for the 1st
> commit fest of 9.4:
> - 20130606_1_remove_reltoastidxid_v9.patch, removing reltoastidxid, to allow
> a toast relation to have multiple indexes running
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
> (2013/03/05 22:46), Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe this is acceptable collateral damage. I don't know. But we
>>> definitely stand a chance of breaking applications if we change
>>>
In 9.3 HEAD I am getting what seems to be spurious wrap-around shutdowns.
postgres=# SELECT datname, datfrozenxid, age(datfrozenxid) FROM pg_database;
datname | datfrozenxid |age
---+--+---
template1 | 2621759843 | 0
template0 | 2621759843 |
CommitFest 1 for the 9.4 development cycle (CF 2013-06) has begun.
To kick off 9.4 with a big rush, we have a total of 98 patches, 80 of
which are currently "needs review". That means we need lots of
reviewers! Fortunately, many of you have put your names down as
reviewers next to about half the
On 16 June 2013 17:25, Samrat Revagade wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> So I strongly object to calling this patch anything to do with
>> "failback safe". You simply don't have enough data to make such a bold
>> claim. (Which is why we call it synchrono
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>
> So I strongly object to calling this patch anything to do with
> "failback safe". You simply don't have enough data to make such a bold
> claim. (Which is why we call it synchronous replication and not "zero
> data loss", for example).
>
>
Le samedi 15 juin 2013 23:45:21, Andrew Dunstan a écrit :
> On 06/15/2013 02:43 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 2013, at 4:12 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>REGRESS_OPTS = --inputdir=test --outputdir=test \
> >>
> >> --load-extension=$(EXTENSION)
> >>
> >>...
>
Hello,
Instead of pushing extra info to the logs I decided that we could
without giving away extra details per policy. I wrote the error message
in a way that tells the most obvious problems, without admitting to any
of them. Please see attached:
diff --git a/src/backend/libpq/auth.c b/src/
Hi,
I saw you added this 2-year old thread to the 2013-06 commitfest, but I
don't see any new activity. Huh?
On 28.05.2011 00:48, Fabien COELHO wrote:
From a language definition perspective, it is helpful to have a name for
every case instead of an implicit fallback, without any word to des
On 10.06.2013 13:51, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote:
I create patch which is improvement of checkpoint IO scheduler for
stable transaction responses.
* Problem in checkpoint IO schedule in heavy transaction case
When heavy transaction in database, I think PostgreSQL checkpoint
scheduler has two problems
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Christopher Browne wrote:
> This situation falls from a problem that we noticed a mighty long time ago
> in Slony, where the set of XIDs outstanding gets very large, and, attendant
> to that, the set of "action id" values by which tuples are being filtered,
> gets
On 6 June 2013 16:13, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Christopher Browne
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>>>
>>>
Joking about "640K" aside, it doesn't seem reasonable to expect a truly
enormous query as is generated by
On 14 June 2013 17:05, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Attached is a patch for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY for
> 9.4 CF1. The goal of this patch is to allow a refresh without
> interfering with concurrent reads, using transactional semantics.
Is there a reason to keep the non-concurrent behav
On 14 June 2013 22:00, Robert Haas wrote:
> Parallel query, or any subset of that project such as parallel sort,
> will require a way to start background workers on demand. Thanks to
> Alvaro's work on 9.3, we now have the ability to configure background
> workers via shared_preload_libraries. B
On 15 June 2013 12:25, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> additionally it *could* have the property Simon proposed earlier
> of *uncompressed* pages having some predetermined size, so we
> could retain optimisations of substring() even on compressed TOAST
> values.
That wasn't about having fixed size pages,
On 15 June 2013 13:02, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-06-15 13:11:47 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> If it were truly pluggable - that is just load a .dll, set a GUG and start
>> using it
>
> Ok. I officially rechristen the patchset to 'extensible compression
> support'.
+1
(I confess I was confu
On 14 June 2013 10:11, Samrat Revagade wrote:
> We have already started a discussion on pgsql-hackers for the problem of
> taking fresh backup during the failback operation here is the link for that:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/caf8q-gxg3pqtf71nvece-6ozraew5pwhk7yqtbjgwrfu513...@mail
On 06/16/2013 03:50 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> Claiming that the algorithm will be one of only two (current and
>> "whatever algorithm we come up with ") suggests that it is
>> only one bit, which is undoubtedly too little for having a "plugga
On 14 June 2013 17:21, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 16:10 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Jeff Davis has a patch pending
>> (1365493015.7580.3240.camel@sussancws0025) that passes the buffer_std
>> flag down to MarkBufferDirtyHint() for exactly that reason. I thought we
>> were on track
40 matches
Mail list logo
