Re: [HACKERS] Creating Empty Index

2013-11-03 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>> What exactly would be the point? Indexes are automatically maintained by >>> postgres. Something that isn't doesn't seem to me to qualify for the >>> descriptio

[HACKERS] Removal of archive in wal_level

2013-11-03 Thread Michael Paquier
Hi all, Following the discussions done these last days about wal_level like this one: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cabuevewigm-ppobkgdkm6lzyo+ovrdz7soxn_5by8e8pcae...@mail.gmail.com Please find attached a patch doing what is written in the $subject. Thoughts? -- Michael commit 5a06f45ca8

Re: [HACKERS] missing RelationCloseSmgr in FreeFakeRelcacheEntry?

2013-11-03 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 29.10.2013 03:16, Andres Freund wrote: Hi, I've started a valgrind run earlier when trying to run the regression tests with valgrind --error-exitcode=122 (to cause the regression tests to fail visibly) but it crashed frequently... One of them was: ==2184== Invalid write of size 8 ==2184==

Re: [HACKERS] Shave a few instructions from child-process startup sequence

2013-11-03 Thread Tom Lane
Amit Kapila writes: > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think this is adding fragility for absolutely no meaningful savings. >> The existing code does not depend on the assumption that the array >> is filled consecutively and no entries are closed early. >As I could see, i

Re: [HACKERS] Shave a few instructions from child-process startup sequence

2013-11-03 Thread Amit Kapila
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Kapila writes: >> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Gurjeet Singh wrote: >>> Just a small patch; hopefully useful. > >> This is valid saving as we are filling array ListenSocket[] in >> StreamServerPort() serially, so during ClosePostmasterPo

[HACKERS] postgres_fdw & async queries

2013-11-03 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings, I was poking around the Append node and considering my earlier suggestion to build an Async method of pulling data out of nodes under Append which support that option. It looks workable, but I was also considering simply changing postgres_fdw to use async queries instead- whi

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Async query processing

2013-11-03 Thread Claudio Freire
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > I would like to add truly asynchronous query processing to libpq, enabling > command pipelining. The idea is to to allow applications to auto-tune to > the bandwidth-delay product and reduce the number of context switches when > running agai

[HACKERS] RFC: Async query processing

2013-11-03 Thread Florian Weimer
I would like to add truly asynchronous query processing to libpq, enabling command pipelining. The idea is to to allow applications to auto-tune to the bandwidth-delay product and reduce the number of context switches when running against a local server. Here's a sketch of what the interface

Re: [HACKERS] logical column order and physical column order

2013-11-03 Thread David Johnston
David Rowley wrote > I'm sure in the real world there are many cases where a better choice in > column ordering would save space and save processing times, but is this > something that we want to leave up to our users? Right now there is little visibility, from probably 99% of people, that this is

Re: [HACKERS] gcc 4.8 compiler warning in ecpg check

2013-11-03 Thread Michael Meskes
On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 02:25:17PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > This could be removed, but is it something that is actually part of what > is being tested? Thanks for spotting Peter. Yes, this should have been used. I just committed a fix. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot

Re: [HACKERS] logical column order and physical column order

2013-11-03 Thread Alvaro Herrera
David Rowley escribió: > I've just been looking at how alignment of columns in tuples can make the > tuple larger than needed. This has been discussed at length previously, and there was a design proposed to solve this problem. See these past discussions: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hac

Re: [HACKERS] logical column order and physical column order

2013-11-03 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 09:40:18PM +1300, Gavin Flower wrote: > I think the system should PHYSICALLY store the columns in the most > space efficient order, and have a facility for mapping to & from the > LOGICAL order - so that users & application developers only have > worry about the logical orde

Re: [HACKERS] logical column order and physical column order

2013-11-03 Thread Gavin Flower
On 03/11/13 20:37, David Rowley wrote: I've just been looking at how alignment of columns in tuples can make the tuple larger than needed. I created 2 tables... None of which are very real world, but I was hunting for the extremes here... The first table contained an int primary key and then

[HACKERS] logical column order and physical column order

2013-11-03 Thread David Rowley
I've just been looking at how alignment of columns in tuples can make the tuple larger than needed. I created 2 tables... None of which are very real world, but I was hunting for the extremes here... The first table contained an int primary key and then a total of 10 int columns and 10 boolean co