> > syncrep.c: In function ‘SyncRepReleaseWaiters’:
> > syncrep.c:421:6: warning: variable ‘numdataflush’ set but not used
> > [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
> >
>
> Sorry I forgot fix it.
>
> I have attached the patch which I modified.
>
>
Attached patch combines documentation patch and source-code p
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 15 September 2013 01:14, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here's a reviewable version of what I've dubbed Minmax indexes.
>>
> Thanks for the patch, but I seem to have immediately hit a snag:
>
> pgbench=# CREATE INDEX minmaxtest ON pgb
On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 11:33 +1000, James Sewell wrote:
> New patch attached. I've moved from using a boolean to an enum
> trivalue.
You have updated the documentation to say that the ldareferrals option
only applies in search+bind mode. But looking over the code I think it
applies in both modes.
David Fetter escribió:
> Should the things you tried and others be in the regression tests? If
> so, should we start with whatever had been in the regression tests
> when the line type was dropped?
Actually, the patch does include a regression test for the revived type
(and it passes). I don't
relscan.h is a bit of an unfortunate header because it requires a lot of
other headers to compile, and is also required by execnodes.h. This
quick patch removes the struct definitions from that file, moving them
into a new relscan_details.h file; the reworked relscan.h does not need
any other head
Antonin Houska escribió:
> While reading storage/lmgr/lock.c I noticed that the last (proc)
> argument of LockCheckConflicts() is not referenced inside the function.
> Is it just a remnant from older version?
My guess is this is just an oversight. The use of that argument was
removed in commit 85
On 2013-09-16 15:26:08 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > I can understand claiming that the risk is acceptable but arguing
> > it's not there seems extremly strange to me.
>
> It's not a risk. It's why the operator exists.
Pft. It's fine if the materialized view code uses it. I don't see the
dan
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 07:04:32PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut escribió:
> > Here is a new patch for the line type, with a new input/output format
> > {A,B,C}, as discussed in this thread.
>
> I gave this a quick look. The new input/output format appears to work
> well. The i
Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-09-16 14:39:30 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On 2013-09-16 16:58:21 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
memcmp() has served well for HOT and for _equalConst(); why
would it suddenly fall short for MV maintenance?
>>>
>>> I don't have a prob
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 02:32:56PM -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> The operators and sequencing involving actual records seems to be
> different from that for row value constructors, and it appears to
> be for good reason -- so that indexing will work correctly.
>
> My questions:
>
> Did I miss so
On 2013-09-16 23:58:46 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > suppress_redundant_updates_trigger() function?
>
> You get superflous trigger calls. So what. It's not usable for anything
> but a trigger.
Primarily unneccesary IO, not unneccessary trigger calls (which can also
happen).
Greetings,
Andres
On 2013-09-16 14:39:30 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2013-09-16 16:58:21 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> memcmp() has served well for HOT and for _equalConst(); why
> >> would it suddenly fall short for MV maintenance?
> >
> > I don't have a problem using it internally,
Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-09-16 16:58:21 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>> memcmp() has served well for HOT and for _equalConst(); why
>> would it suddenly fall short for MV maintenance?
>
> I don't have a problem using it internally, I have a problem
> exposing the capability to sql.
... like we
Peter Eisentraut escribió:
> Here is a new patch for the line type, with a new input/output format
> {A,B,C}, as discussed in this thread.
I gave this a quick look. The new input/output format appears to work
well. The input format using two points still works, which is nice.
Regression tests pa
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:28:23PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-09-15 19:49:26 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > Type-specific identity operators seem like overkill, anyway. If we find
> > that
> > meaningless variations in a particular data type are causing too many false
> > non-matches for
While reading storage/lmgr/lock.c I noticed that the last (proc)
argument of LockCheckConflicts() is not referenced inside the function.
Is it just a remnant from older version?
// Antonin Houska (Tony)
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to you
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> The attached patch should speak for itself.
Yeah, it's a very nice cleanup.
> I have supplied a few variants:
>
> - asprintf() is the standard function, supplied by libpgport if
> necessary.
>
> - pg_asprintf() is asprintf() with automatic error handling (like
> pg_ma
> "Jeff" == Jeff Janes writes:
Jeff> I used "git diff" configured to use
Jeff> src/tools/git-external-diff, as described here:
hmm...
so that git-external-diff script is trying to fake git diff output,
including using 'diff -git' and index lines, but the context-diff
output wouldn't work
On 2013-09-13 18:32, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Yeb Havinga wrote:
Is the following known behaviour, or should I put some time in writing a
self contained test case?
We have a function that takes a value and returns a ROW type. With the
function implemented in language
On 2013-09-16 16:58:21 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> memcmp() has served well for HOT and for _equalConst(); why would it suddenly
> fall short for MV maintenance?
I don't have a problem using it internally, I have a problem exposing
the capability to sql. Don't tell me that's the same.
Greetings,
On 09/16/2013 09:57 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> On 16 September 2013 at 14:43 Merlin Moncure
wrote:
>
> Huge +1 on on this. Couple random thoughts:
>
> *) Hard to see how you would structure this as an extension as you're
> adjusting the behaviors of existing functions, unless you wanted to
Noah, this is the kind of memory leak I was referring to which would be
nice if valgrind could help with. I'm not sure exactly what that would look
like though, I've never tried writing support code for valgrind to deal
with custom allocators.
--
greg
On 16 Sep 2013 15:38, "Yeb Havinga" wrote:
Hi Dean,
First of all, thanks for working on this!
The patch compiles and applies fine (though with offsets). The feature
is in the SQL standard, and further improves an existing feature.
Some stuff I've spotted and fixed in the attached patch (hope you don't
mind, thought it'd be easier to
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> > "Josh" == Josh Berkus writes:
>
> Josh> The issue isn't that, it's that git apply is just buggy and
> Josh> can't tell the difference between a new file and a modified
> Josh> one.
>
> It's not the fault of git apply; the patch co
Hello
a few other comments:
1. you disable a assert in compile time in dependency of enable_assertions
variable. I don't think, so it is good idea. When somebody enables a
assertions, then assertions will not work on all cached functions in
session. You should to do check if assertions are enable
On 09/15/2013 11:46 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> git reset?
>>
>>
> git reset wouldn't remove the files that were newly added by the patch,
> would it?
The issue isn't that, it's that git apply is just buggy and can't tell
the difference bet
> "Josh" == Josh Berkus writes:
Josh> The issue isn't that, it's that git apply is just buggy and
Josh> can't tell the difference between a new file and a modified
Josh> one.
It's not the fault of git apply; the patch contained explicit
annotations on all the files claiming that they were
Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-09-16 10:58:01 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On 2013-09-16 10:46:53 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I don't recall seeing anyone posting regarding the existing
undocumented record comparison operators. Nor do I recall
seeing a
Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> I don't recall seeing anyone posting regarding the existing
>> undocumented record comparison operators.
> This behavior came about via a gripe of mine (but mostly courtesy
> Tom Lane_:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6EE64EF3AB31D5448D000
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
>> What I meant is that rather than leave it really undocumented,
>> document it as "system function for specific usage, has caveats
>> and may change in future versions. use at your own risk and
>> make sure you kno
Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-09-16 10:46:53 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> I don't recall seeing anyone posting
>> regarding the existing undocumented record comparison operators.
>> Nor do I recall seeing anyone posting about the undocumented
>> pattern comparison operators.
>
> I've used and
On 2013-09-16 10:46:53 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> One would think so, yet I don't recall seeing anyone posting
> regarding the existing undocumented record comparison operators.
> Nor do I recall seeing anyone posting about the undocumented
> pattern comparison operators.
I've used and have s
Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> I noticed there is nothing available in built-in psql help about
> OPEN command. Does it intentional ?
>
> postgres=# \h open
> No help available for "open".
> Try \h with no arguments to see available help.
PostgreSQL does not include OPEN as a SQL command:
http://www.po
On 2013-09-16 10:58:01 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2013-09-16 10:46:53 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >> I don't recall seeing anyone posting
> >> regarding the existing undocumented record comparison operators.
> >> Nor do I recall seeing anyone posting about the un
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> What I meant is that rather than leave it really undocumented,
> document it as "system function for specific usage, has caveats
> and may change in future versions. use at your own risk and
> make sure you know what you are doing"
Well, that was my original assumption and
On 15 Sep 2013 18:55, "Andrew Dunstan" wrote:
>
>
> On 09/15/2013 05:52 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 2013-09-14 at 22:15 +0200, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> >
>> > This proposal comes with no patch because I think we
On 09/16/2013 04:01 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
>> Lots of people were bitten when (undocumented) hash
>> functions were changed thus breaking hash-based partitioning.
> Nobody can be affected by the new operators in this patch unless
> they choose to use them to compare two
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> In order to modernize our documentation tool chain, I have made a few
> tweaks to allow using FOP to build the PDF documentation. I'd like to
> get some testing on different operating systems and versions thereof in
> order to learn whether this solution is robust and eas
Andres Freund wrote:
> I think it's far more realistic to implement an identity operator
> that will fall back to a type specific operator iff equals has
> "strange" properties.
My biggest problem with that approach is that it defaults to
incorrect behavior for types for which user-visible diffe
Hi,
Looking at this version of the patch now:
1) comment for "Phase 4 of REINDEX CONCURRENTLY" ends with an incomplete
sentence.
2) I don't think the drop algorithm used now is correct. Your
index_concurrent_set_dead() sets both indisvalid = false and indislive =
false at the same time. It does s
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 08:58:32PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2013-09-14 11:25:52 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> > Andres Freund wrote:
>> > > But both arrays don't have the same binary representation since
>> > > the former has a null
Ants Aasma-2 wrote
>> So, has anyone compiled checksum vectorized on OS X? Are there any
>> performance data that would indicate whether or not I should worry with
>> this in the first place?
>
> Even without vectorization the worst case performance hit is about
> 20%. This is for a workload that
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Kevin wrote:
> My attempts to compile it vectorized on OS X seemed to have failed since I
> don't find a vector instruction in the .o file even though the options
> -msse4.1 -funroll-loops -ftree-vectorize should be supported according to the
> man page for Appl
On 2013-08-29 10:39:09 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I have been of the opinion for some time now that the
> shared-invalidation code is not a particularly good design for much of
> what we need. Waiting for an old snapshot is often a proxy for
> waiting long enough that we can be sure every other b
On 2013-09-15 19:49:26 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 08:58:32PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2013-09-14 11:25:52 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > > Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > But both arrays don't have the same binary representation since
> > > > the former has a null
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
>> On 16 September 2013 at 14:43 Merlin Moncure wrote:
>
>>
>> Huge +1 on on this. Couple random thoughts:
>>
>> *) Hard to see how you would structure this as an extension as you're
>> adjusting the behaviors of existing functions, unless you
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Lots of people were bitten when (undocumented) hash
> functions were changed thus breaking hash-based partitioning.
Nobody can be affected by the new operators in this patch unless
they choose to use them to compare two records. They don't work
for any other type and they
On 27.08.2013 19:37, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 27.08.2013 18:56, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Here's an updated patch.
Ah, forgot one thing:
Here's a little extension I've been using to test this. It contains two
functions; one to simply consume N xids, making it faster to hit the
creation of
> On 16 September 2013 at 14:43 Merlin Moncure wrote:
>
> Huge +1 on on this. Couple random thoughts:
>
> *) Hard to see how you would structure this as an extension as you're
> adjusting the behaviors of existing functions, unless you wanted to
> introduce new function names for testing purpos
On 14 August 2013 Rushabh Lathia wrote:
>postgres=# create table test ( a timestamptz);
>CREATE TABLE
>-- Date with year 1000
>postgres=# insert into test values ( 'Sat Mar 11 23:58:48 1000 IST');
>INSERT 0 1
>-- Now try with year 1 it will return error
>postgres=# insert into test values
Hi,
2013-08-17 13:02 keltezéssel, Boszormenyi Zoltan írta:
[snip, discussion of WHERE CURRENT OF in the ECPG client lib]
I had a second thought about it and the client side caching and
parser behind the application's back seems to be an overkill.
Instead, I propose a different solution, which i
On 9/15/13 10:49 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> On 2013-09-15 16:34, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On Sat, 2013-09-14 at 20:47 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>>> Attached is a patch for supporting assertions in PL/PgSQL. These are
>>> similar to the Assert() backend macro: they can be disabled during
>>>
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 9:27 PM, chris travers wrote:
> Hi all;
>
> Currently json_populate_record and json_populate_recordset cannot work with
> nested json objects. This creates two fundamental problems when trying to
> use JSON as an interface format.
>
> The first problem is you can't easily
On 2013-09-16 15:18:50 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > So even a tiny allocation, much smaller than any page size, succeeds, and it
> > reserves a huge page. I tried the same with larger values; the kernel always
> > uses huge pages, and rounds up the allocation to a multiple of the huge page
> > s
On 2013-09-16 16:13:57 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 16.09.2013 13:15, Andres Freund wrote:
> >On 2013-09-16 11:15:28 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >>On 14.09.2013 02:41, Richard Poole wrote:
> >>>The attached patch adds the MAP_HUGETLB flag to mmap() for shared memory
> >>>on systems
On 16.09.2013 13:15, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-09-16 11:15:28 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 14.09.2013 02:41, Richard Poole wrote:
The attached patch adds the MAP_HUGETLB flag to mmap() for shared memory
on systems that support it. It's based on Christian Kruse's patch from
last year,
Hello,
I think it would be nice for PostgreSQL to support national character types
largely because it should ease migration from other DBMSs.
[Reasons why we need NCHAR]
--
1. Invite users of other DBMSs to PostgreSQL. Oracle, SQL Server, MySQL,
> "Alexander" == Alexander Korotkov writes:
Alexander> 2) NaN coordinates should be processed in GiST index scan
Alexander> like in sequential scan.
postgres=# select * from pts order by a <-> '(0,0)' limit 10;
a
--
(1,1)
(7,nan)
(9,nan)
(11,nan)
(4,nan)
(nan,6)
(2,
On 2013-09-16 14:43:27 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 15.09.2013 17:05, Andres Freund wrote:
> >On 2013-09-15 03:34:53 +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>--On 15. September 2013 00:25:34 +0200 Andres Freund
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Looks like a good idea to me. The implementation looks s
On 15.09.2013 17:05, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-09-15 03:34:53 +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
--On 15. September 2013 00:25:34 +0200 Andres Freund
wrote:
Looks like a good idea to me. The implementation looks sane as well,
except that I am not sure if we really need to introduce that faux
va
Hi hackers,
I just wonder how hard would be to implement something like "Not In FK
Constraint" or opposite to FK...
i.e:
FK ensures that value of FK column of inserted row exists in refferenced
Table
NotInFK should ensure that value of NotInFK column of inserted row does
not Exist in referen
On 2013-09-16 11:19:19 +0100, Chris Travers wrote:
>
>
> > On 16 September 2013 at 11:03 Heikki Linnakangas
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > Something like this seems completely sensible to me:
> >
> > create index i_accounts on accounts using minmax (ts) where valid = true;
> >
> > The situation where tha
On 2013-09-16 10:16:37 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > On 2013-09-14 15:03:52 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > >
> > > On 09/14/2013 02:37 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > >Folks,
> > > >
> > > >Lately I've been running into a lot of reports
> On 16 September 2013 at 11:03 Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
>
> Something like this seems completely sensible to me:
>
> create index i_accounts on accounts using minmax (ts) where valid = true;
>
> The situation where that would be useful is if 'valid' accounts are
> fairly well clustered, but
On 2013-09-16 11:15:28 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 14.09.2013 02:41, Richard Poole wrote:
> >The attached patch adds the MAP_HUGETLB flag to mmap() for shared memory
> >on systems that support it. It's based on Christian Kruse's patch from
> >last year, incorporating suggestions from Andr
On 15.09.2013 03:14, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
+ Partial indexes are not supported; since an index is concerned with minimum
and
+ maximum values of the involved columns across all the pages in the table, it
+ doesn't make sense to exclude values. Another way to see "partial" indexes
+ here would b
"wangs...@highgo.com.cn" wrote:
I modified the code for this situation.I consider it very simple.
It will does not modify the table file, when the scale has been
increased exclusively.
Kevin Grittner wrote:
This patch would allow data in a column which was not consistent
with the colum
On 9/16/13 8:04 AM, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
I'm taking a look at this patch as part of the current commitfest [*],
Thanks!
However the sample function provided in the documentation throws a
runtime error due to a missing FROM-clause entry.
Ugh. I'll look into fixing that.
* Does it f
On 15 September 2013 01:14, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's a reviewable version of what I've dubbed Minmax indexes. Some
> people said they would like to use some other name for this feature, but
> I have yet to hear usable ideas, so for now I will keep calling them
> this way. I'm open
2013-09-13 21:03 keltezéssel, Andrew Gierth írta:
Latest version of patch, incorporating regression tests and docs, and
fixing the "operator" issue previously raised.
It looks good. I think it's ready for a committer.
Best regards,
Zoltán Böszörményi
--
--
Zolt
On 14.09.2013 02:41, Richard Poole wrote:
The attached patch adds the MAP_HUGETLB flag to mmap() for shared memory
on systems that support it. It's based on Christian Kruse's patch from
last year, incorporating suggestions from Andres Freund.
I don't understand the logic in figuring out the pag
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <
hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
> On 15.09.2013 12:14, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Heikki Linnakangas<
>> hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
>>
>> There's a few open questions:
>>>
>>> 1. How are we going to
On 15.09.2013 12:14, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Heikki Linnakangas<
hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
There's a few open questions:
1. How are we going to handle pg_upgrade? It would be nice to be able to
read the old page format, or convert on-the-fly. OTOH, if
(2013/07/06 1:16), Pavel Stehule wrote:
I am sending a patch that removes strict requirements for DROP IF
EXISTS statements. This behave is similar to our ALTER IF EXISTS
behave now.
postgres=# DROP CAST IF EXISTS (sss AS public.casttesttype);
NOTICE: types "sss" and "public.casttesttype" does
On Thursday 12 September 2013 12:10:01 Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> The documentation build fails:
>
> openjade:trigger.sgml:72:9:E: end tag for "ACRONYM" omitted, but OMITTAG
> NO was specified
> openjade:trigger.sgml:70:56: start tag was here
Thank you, I took the time to install a working doc-bui
75 matches
Mail list logo
