Hi all
I've been using the dynamic BGWorker support for some recent work, and I
think I've found an issue with how postmaster restarts are handled.
TL;DR: I don't think there's a safe way to use a BGWorker (static or
dynamic) with bgw_restart_time != BGW_NEVER_RESTART and a bgw_main_arg
Datum tha
On 04/15/2014 10:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > I actually think we should *add* a LIBPQEXPORT that handles this for
>> > libpq, much like PGDLLEXPORT does for postgres(.exe). And in the
>> > process, rename PGDLLEXPORT to POSTGRESEXPORT or PGSERVEREXPORT or
>> > something.
> My reaction to that is "n
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached adds CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW AS to the list of statements
> that can be EXPLAINed.
Now that you mention that, REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW can be EXPLAIN'ed
as well, except that it returns that and does not error out:
=# explai
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Hackers,
>
> I think 9.3 has given us evidence that our users aren't giving new
> versions of PostgreSQL substantial beta testing, or if they are, they
> aren't sharing the results with us.
>
> How can we make beta testing better and more effe
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> In the past, various hackers have noted problems they've observed with
> this scheme. A common pathology is to see frantic searching for a
> victim buffer only to find all buffer usage_count values at 5. It may
> take multiple revolutions o
On 04/16/2014 06:12 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On 04/16/2014 01:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hannu Krosing writes:
>>> Is there a way to force it to prefer a plan where the results of (select
>>> id from onemillion where data > '0.9' limit 100)
>>> are passed to FDW as a single IN ( = ANY(...)) query
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Ants Aasma wrote:
>> There's a paper on a non blocking GCLOCK algorithm, that does lock
>> free clock sweep and buffer pinning[7]. If we decide to stay with
>> GCLOCK it may be interesting, although I still
On 04/16/2014 01:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing writes:
>> Is there a way to force it to prefer a plan where the results of (select
>> id from onemillion where data > '0.9' limit 100)
>> are passed to FDW as a single IN ( = ANY(...)) query and are retrieved
>> all at once ?
> You could wri
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas writes:
> >> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Yeah. After a fast review of the custom-scan and cache-scan
> >>> patches, it seems to me that my original fears are largely
> >>> confirmed: the custom scan p
> Andres Freund writes:
> > What I think this discussion shows that this patch isn't ready for
> > 9.4. The first iteration of the patch came in 2013-11-06. Imo that's
> > pretty damn late for a relatively complex patch. And obviously we
> > don't have agreement on the course forward.
> > I don't
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Let me point out again that my patch doesn't actually do anything about
> PGDLLEXPORT or the like. It just adds automatic prototypes into
> PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1, to reduce compiler warnings in extensions and
> reduce some boilerplate in general.
Hmm ... for some reason
Hi,
Attached adds CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW AS to the list of statements
that can be EXPLAINed.
--
Amit
explain-create-materialized-view-as.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.post
On 4/14/14, 3:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/4/14, 10:07 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> If
>> somebody previously tried to do the correct thing and attached
>> PGDLLEXPORT to their own *function* prototoype, it would cause problems
>> now.
>
> What is the difference (on affected platforms) bet
On 4/15/14, 11:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> On 4/14/14, 10:30 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> Yes. It probably won't be a huge change, but it will need a bit of code.
>
>> It might be more future-proof if the build farm just called make
>> check-world and used some other way
Hi hackers,
I am learning about numeric .
The comment of NumericShort format is:
* In the NumericShort format, the remaining 14 bits of the header word
* (n_short.n_header) are allocated as follows: 1 for sign (positive or
* negative), 6 for dynamic scale, and 7 for weight. In practice, most
On 4/9/14, 10:57 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> So it'd be an array, and by default you'd have something like:
> basebackup_skip_path = $log_directory
> ?
>
> Maybe use it to skip backup labels by default as well.
> basebackup_skip_path = $log_directory, $backup_l
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 4/14/14, 10:30 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Yes. It probably won't be a huge change, but it will need a bit of code.
> It might be more future-proof if the build farm just called make
> check-world and used some other way to identify the individual tests in
> that ou
On 4/14/14, 10:30 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 04/14/2014 10:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>>> Add TAP tests for client programs
>> I assume the buildfarm would need to be taught about this?
>>
>>
>
>
> Yes. It probably won't be a huge change, but it will ne
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Christian Ullrich
wrote:
> * From: Robert Haas
>> Why not just pass a command-line switch?
>
> Because, as I wrote in the message you are quoting, I did not think that
> having a command-line option for the sole purpose of telling the
> postmaster who its parent i
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> For the create case, I'm wondering if we should put the block that
>>> tests for !hmap *before* the _dosmaperr() and check for EE
sure.postgres wrote
> Hi hackers,
>
> I am learning about numeric .
> The comment of NumericShort format is:
> * In the NumericShort format, the remaining 14 bits of the header word
> * (n_short.n_header) are allocated as follows: 1 for sign (positive or
> * negative), 6 for dynamic scale, and
Hi hackers,
I am learning about numeric .
The comment of NumericShort format is:
* In the NumericShort format, the remaining 14 bits of the header word
* (n_short.n_header) are allocated as follows: 1 for sign (positive or
* negative), 6 for dynamic scale, and 7 for weight. In practice, most
Thom Brown-2 wrote
> On 15 April 2014 23:19, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <
> adsmail@
> > wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> stumbled over a number of "iff" in the source where "if" is meant - not
>> sure
>> what the real story behind this is, but attached is a patch to fix the
>> about
>> 80 occurrences.
>>
>>
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <
adsm...@wars-nicht.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> stumbled over a number of "iff" in the source where "if" is meant - not
> sure what the real story behind this is, but attached is a patch to fix the
> about 80 occurrences.
>
>
"IFF" is a common i
Steve Crawford writes:
> On 04/15/2014 05:36 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> On 04/15/2014 06:26 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>>> Yeah, apparently those are intentional, and mean "if and only if"
>> This is a reasonably common idiom, or used to be.
> If it has fallen into disuse the news has failed to re
On 04/15/2014 05:36 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 04/15/2014 06:26 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
On 15 April 2014 23:19, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
wrote:
Hi,
stumbled over a number of "iff" in the source where "if" is meant -
not sure
what the real story behind this is, but attached is a patch to fix
On 04/15/2014 06:26 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
On 15 April 2014 23:19, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
Hi,
stumbled over a number of "iff" in the source where "if" is meant - not sure
what the real story behind this is, but attached is a patch to fix the about
80 occurrences.
This only appears in
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Ants Aasma wrote:
> PostgreSQL replacement algorithm is more similar to Generalized CLOCK
> or GCLOCK, as described in [1]. CLOCK-Pro [2] is a different algorithm
> that approximates LIRS[3]. LIRS is what MySQL implements[4] and
> CLOCK-Pro is implemented by NetBSD
Hannu Krosing writes:
> Is there a way to force it to prefer a plan where the results of (select
> id from onemillion where data > '0.9' limit 100)
> are passed to FDW as a single IN ( = ANY(...)) query and are retrieved
> all at once ?
You could write the query like that:
select * from onemilli
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> PostgreSQL implements a clock sweep algorithm, which gets us something
> approaching an LRU for the buffer manager in trade-off for less
> contention on core structures. Buffers have a usage_count/"popularity"
> that currently saturates at
On 04/15/2014 02:25 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Hackers,
>
> We need documentation on how users should intelligently set the
> multixact freeze settings. I'm happy to write the actual text, but I
> definitely don't have any idea how to set these myself. Under what
> circumstances should they be dif
On 15 April 2014 23:19, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> stumbled over a number of "iff" in the source where "if" is meant - not sure
> what the real story behind this is, but attached is a patch to fix the about
> 80 occurrences.
>
> This only appears in comments, not in any code path.
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes:
> [ pathkey_and_uniqueindx_v10_20130411.patch ]
I thought some more about this patch, and realized that it's more or less
morally equivalent to allowing references to ungrouped variables when the
query has a GROUP BY clause listing all the columns of the primary key.
In
Hi
I am playing around with postgres_fdw and found that the following code ...
--
CREATE EXTENSION postgres_fdw;
CREATE SERVER loop foreign data wrapper postgres_fdw
OPTIONS (port '5432', dbname 'testdb');
CREATE USER MAPPING FOR PUBLIC SERVER loop;
create ta
Hackers,
I think 9.3 has given us evidence that our users aren't giving new
versions of PostgreSQL substantial beta testing, or if they are, they
aren't sharing the results with us.
How can we make beta testing better and more effective? How can we get
more users to actually throw serious worklo
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> I have checked that other place in code also check handle to
>>> decide if API has failed. Refer function PGSharedMemoryIsInUse(
Hackers,
We need documentation on how users should intelligently set the
multixact freeze settings. I'm happy to write the actual text, but I
definitely don't have any idea how to set these myself. Under what
circumstances should they be different from freeze_max_age? How?
--
Josh Berkus
Post
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/15/2014 02:15 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> You're counting XLogRecData structs, not backup blocks. Each
> backup block typically consists of three XLogRecData structs, one
> to record a BkpBlock struct, one to record the data before the
> unus
On 04/15/2014 11:53 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
One more question before I get to that. I had applied the following
patch to XLogInsert
8<--
diff --git a/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
b/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
index 2f71590..e39cd37 100644
- --- a/src/backend/acce
Joe Conway writes:
> In other words, based on my inserted logic, it appears that there are
> 5 and 6 backup blocks on a fairly regular basis.
> However in xlog.h it says:
> 8<--
> * If we backed up any disk blocks with the XLOG record, we use flag
> * bits in xl_info to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/14/2014 04:34 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 04/14/2014 04:25 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2014-04-14 16:22:48 -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
>>> That'll help performance, but lets say I generally keep WAL
>>> files for PITR and don't turn that off befor
David Fetter writes:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 02:46:34PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Fixed. I added a personal script option that allows me to test contrib,
>> but forgot to run it.
> Is that script of general utility for committers? If so, it might be
> good to include it in the distributi
On 2014-04-15 12:32:36 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 02:46:34PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 02:32:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > > psql: conditionally display oids and replication identity
> > >
> > > Buildfarm isn'
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 02:46:34PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 02:32:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > psql: conditionally display oids and replication identity
> >
> > Buildfarm isn't terribly pleased with this --- looks like you missed
> > con
Andres Freund writes:
>> On 2014-03-27 08:02:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Buildfarm member prairiedog thinks there's something unreliable about
>>> commit f01d1ae3a104019d6d68aeff85c4816a275130b3:
> So I had made a notice to recheck on
> this.
> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_hist
On 2014-03-28 21:36:11 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2014-03-27 08:02:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Buildfarm member prairiedog thinks there's something unreliable about
> > commit f01d1ae3a104019d6d68aeff85c4816a275130b3:
>
> > ***
> > /Users/buildfarm/bf-data/HEAD/pgsql.13462/src/te
* From: Amit Kapila
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Christian Ullrich
> wrote:
> > * From: Amit Kapila
> >> Do you mean to say use some existing environment variable?
> >> Introducing an environment variable to solve this issue or infact
> >> using some existing environ variable doesn't see
* From: Bruce Momjian
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 09:34:14AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > The problem can be solved this way, but the only question here is
> > whether it is acceptable for users to have a new console window for
> > server.
> >
> > Can others also please share their opinion if this
* From: Robert Haas
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Christian Ullrich
> wrote:
> > I meant creating a new one, yes. If, say, PGSQL_BACKGROUND_JOB was
> > set, the postmaster etc. would ignore the events.
>
> Why not just pass a command-line switch?
Because, as I wrote in the message you are
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> There are many reports of improvement from lowering shared_buffers.
> The problem is that it tends to show up on complex production
> workloads and that there is no clear evidence pointing to problems
> with the clock sweep; it could be high
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Christian Ullrich wrote:
> I meant creating a new one, yes. If, say, PGSQL_BACKGROUND_JOB was set,
> the postmaster etc. would ignore the events.
Why not just pass a command-line switch?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Pos
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 08:05:11PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 07:58:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > It also has changed the OID status to only display if it exists. One
> > > question that came up with Robert is whether OID status should appe
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I am glad you are looking at this. You are right that it requires a
>> huge amount of testing, but clearly our code needs improvement in this
>> area.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Does anyone re
Andres Freund writes:
> What I think this discussion shows that this patch isn't ready for
> 9.4. The first iteration of the patch came in 2013-11-06. Imo that's
> pretty damn late for a relatively complex patch. And obviously we don't
> have agreement on the course forward.
> I don't think we nee
Hi,
On 2014-04-15 11:07:11 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas writes:
> [ discussion ]
What I think this discussion shows that this patch isn't ready for
9.4. The first iteration of the patch came in 2013-11-06. Imo that's
pretty damn l
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Yeah. After a fast review of the custom-scan and cache-scan patches, it
>>> seems to me that my original fears are largely confirmed: the custom scan
>>> patch is not
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> A concrete example here is setrefs.c, whose responsibilities tend to
> change from release to release. I think if we committed custom-scan
> as is, we'd have great difficulty changing setrefs.c's transformations
> ever again, at least if we hoped to not bre
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah. After a fast review of the custom-scan and cache-scan patches, it
>> seems to me that my original fears are largely confirmed: the custom scan
>> patch is not going to be sufficient to allow development of any truly
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> [ assorted comments about custom-scan patch, but particularly ]
>
>> * The prune hook makes me feel very uneasy. It seems weirdly specific
>> implementation detail, made stranger by the otherwise lack of data
>> maintenance
Craig Ringer writes:
> On 04/15/2014 03:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I still wish we could get rid of this problem by fixing the Windows build
>> recipes so that the PGDLLEXPORT marking wasn't needed. We proved to
>> ourselves recently that getting rid of PGDLLIMPORT on global variables
>> wouldn't
On 04/15/2014 03:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I still wish we could get rid of this problem by fixing the Windows build
> recipes so that the PGDLLEXPORT marking wasn't needed. We proved to
> ourselves recently that getting rid of PGDLLIMPORT on global variables
> wouldn't work, but I'm not sure that
Hi hackers,
I am learning about numeric .
The comment of NumericShort format is:
* In the NumericShort format, the remaining 14 bits of the header word
* (n_short.n_header) are allocated as follows: 1 for sign (positive or
* negative), 6 for dynamic scale, and 7 for weight. In practice, most
Thank you for committing.
At Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:50:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in
<21426.1396021...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
tgl> Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes:
tgl> > Hello. Attached is the 2nd version of 'pushdown in UNION ALL on
tgl> > partitioned tables' patch type 1 - fix in equiv-member version.
tgl>
tgl
63 matches
Mail list logo
