Tom Lane wrote:
There's another copy of ListenSocket[] in the BackendParameters struct.
I also wonder about postmaster.c's habit of using -1 for empty slots
in ListenSocket ... how safe is that for Win64?
On Windows, it should be INVALID_SOCKET.
James
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Marko Kreen wrote:
Note - my proposal would be to get rid of HAVE_INLINE, which
means we are already using inline functions unconditionally
on platforms that matter (gcc). Keeping duplicate code
for obsolete compilers is pointless.
Microsoft C doesn't matter?
I seem to remember that when th
Josh Berkus wrote:
Payloads are also quite useful even in a lossy environment, where you
understand that LISTEN is not a queue. For example, I'd like to be
using LISTEN/NOTIFY for cache invalidation for some applications; if it
misses a few, or double-counts them, it's not an issue. However, I'
Tom Lane wrote:
Actually, I think any attempt to do that would result in a fork,
and a consequent splintering of the community. We can get away
Perhaps the answer might be a pre-emptive simplifying fork to postgres-NG,
perhaps taking a lead from MySQL and Samba.
I'm not sure that you would
Tom Lane wrote:
the function time and the commit time a lot better. But I'm not sure
if the use-case is popular enough to deserve such a hack.
For some OLTP workloads, it makes a lot of sense to spool tuples of
primary key plus new fields into a temp table and then doing a single update
or
Kevin Grittner wrote:
contexts. I don't think the updates to the system tables have the
same magnitude of performance hit as creating these tables, especially
if write barriers are on.
Wouldn't it be cleaner just to defer creation of real files to support the
structures associated with a tem
Andrew Chernow wrote:
The only problem is how to detect the first connection. In a threaded
environment you'd have to perform locking in connectdb, which is
probably not going to fly.
Well, if you do an atomic test for a flag being zero, and if so then
enter a critsec, do
the init iff you're t
Andrew Chernow wrote:
m$ docs indicate that wsastartup can't be called from dllmain :(
OK, fair cop. Says it in the MSDN online version but not in the SDK 6.1
version. :-( Some helper(s)
must start threads I guess.
Re the counting and doing it on first/last socket - of course WSAStartup
co
Magnus Hagander wrote:
The use-case of rapidly creating and dropping connections isn't
particularly common, I think. And there is a perfectly functioning
workaround - something that we should perhaps document in the FAQ or
somewhere in the documentation?
Would it be accetable to do initialise
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
c. Are there any well-known pitfalls/objections which would prevent me from
changing the algorithm to something more efficient (read: IO-bound)?
copyright licenses and patents
Would it be possible to have a plugin facility?
I guess the most likely candidate
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Quite so. CMake outputs MSVC Project files, as I understand it. If you
know of another cross-platform build tool that will do that then speak
up.
I think the wxWidgets team have one, and I think scons has some support
for doing that, though I haven't tried
that part of
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I don't follow what you're saying.
If an update is skipped by a trigger, nothing new is written to disk,
and there should be nothing to vacuum from it. That's why this trigger
can speed up certain update queries enormously.
OK I'll try again.
Suppose we do an update.
T
I saw on a summary for 8.4 that there's a generic function for use as a
before row trigger that will elide null updates (ie replacement with an
identical row).
I can see that this is great - but I was wondering if it should be more
integrated and turned on in the db schema.
Trivially, doing
Kurt Harriman wrote:
B) let the build farm do a nightly build with a C++ compiler
merely as a test to verify that no C++ compilation errors
are introduced, but continue to use C 'officially' for
builds and releases; or
This was the intent of my suggestion.
There can be advantag
Kurt Harriman wrote:
The foremost opposing argument seems to have been that there
should be no attempt to alleviate the existing reserved word
problem without automatic enforcement to guarantee that never
in the future can new occurrences be introduced.
Is there anything in the source that would
Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
The whole single-threaded WAL replay problem is going to rear it's ugly
head here too, and mean that a slave *won't* be able to keep up with a
busy master if it's actually trying to apply all the changes in
real-time.
Is there a reason to commit at the same points that the ma
David Fetter wrote:
This part is a deal-killer. It's a giant up-hill slog to sell warm
standby to those in charge of making resources available because the
warm standby machine consumes SA time, bandwidth, power, rack space,
etc., but provides no tangible benefit, and this feature would have
exa
Marko Kreen wrote:
There is this tiny matter of replicating schema changes asynchronously,
but I suspect nobody actually cares. Few random points about that:
I'm not sure I follow you - the Sybase 'warm standby' replication of
everything is really
useful for business continuity. The per-tab
Tom Lane wrote:
* Trigger on rollback: what's that supposed to do? The current
transaction is already aborted, so the trigger has no hope of making any
database changes that will ever be visible to anyone.
It can however affect state in the backend doing the rollback, which can
be useful.
*
Magnus Hagander wrote:
You interested in trying to code up a patch to verify that? ;)
Practical reality says that I won't get to this before the next version
of Windows is released.
I don't want to promise something I can't deliver.
If there were any desire to provide a MT-aware postmaster,
Magnus Hagander wrote:
The problem is when winsock operations are interrupted by APCs.
See:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers-win32/2004-04/msg00013.php
Whoa! Indeed, that's a bit sucky because they really aren't documented
as interruptible.
In this case though I see not materi
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Yes. We used to use APCs, but touching anything remotely related to
Winsock from an APC is not supported... We had a lot of trouble with it
By implication you'd be doing socket'y stuff from the signal handler on
UNIX? Scary.
I was assuming it would be used to signal an
I'm wondering if the mechanism used for sending signals between
postmaster processes on Win32 is much more heavyweight that is necessary.
Is there a reason not to call OpenThread on the target postmaster's
thread id, and then use QueueUserAPC to execute a 'signal handler'
method on it? (Or Te
Would it be possible to store plans with an indication of the
search path that was used to find tables, and for temp tables
some snapshot of the statistics for the table if any?
My suspicions are that:
* where you have a lot of short-lived connections then actually
they will often use the defau
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
If you have an alternative suggestion them you need to make it now.
well, I'm not sure about the non-collapsing business but no matter.
We are not intending to use FDs for message passing. They will be
stored in shared memory. See previous discussions for details:
I'm m
Is the intent to replace most uses of (pg)kill with a general
purpose messaging system between the processes, or
(just) to address notify per se?
(Presumably with 'fire-and-forget' and also rpc
semantics? And pub-sub? And some sort of
write to an fd protected by an atomic flag to
elide multiple
Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah, I would be far more interested in this patch if it avoided needing
SysV shmem at all. The problem is to find an adequate substitute for
the nattch-based interlock against live children of a dead postmaster.
(confused) Why can't you use mmap of /dev/zero and inherit the
Tom Lane wrote:
PFC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Do the parse tree store fully qualified "schema.table" or
"schema.function" ?
They store OIDs.
So, what happens if we reference a temporary table or something else
that requires resolution
down a search path?
I believe Microsoft a
I was looking at the notify processing in async.c and I noticed that
kill is called whether or not the
process has been signalled already, and whether or not 'this' process
has signalled the process.
It seems unecessary to me - especially if we are on Win32 and the pgkill
is implemented as
a
PFC wrote:
Hello,
So, I embarked (yesterday) on a weekend project to add a new
feature to Postgres...
I use PHP with persistent connections and always have been
bothered that those very small AJAX queries (usually simple selects
returning 1 row) take more CPU in postgres to parse &
James Mansion wrote:
In usage:
AFTER START clears counters and flags.
UPDATE triggers on data set counters and flags.
BEFORE COMMIT examines the counters and flags and performs any final
validation or
adjustments (or external events such as sending a MoM message)
I'd like to point out
Background:
Firebird 2.1 allows:
CREATE TRIGGER name ON
(
CONNECT
| DISCONNECT
| TRANSACTION START
| TRANSACTION COMMIT
| TRANSACTION ROLLBACK
)
I want to allow syntax:
CREATE TRIGGER event
event (3 variations, application can specify any number of them):
AFTER CONNECT
AFTER TRANSACTION
Tom Lane wrote:
(eg how to run it up and feed it SQL ideally without running a
postmaster and execing a back end)
Why would you consider that "ideal"? Such a scenario would have
approximately zip to do with the real-world environment your patch
would face.
Your points what? If I'm fid
Are there any hints and tips anywhere on practical issues for testing
and debugging changes to a backend?
(eg how to run it up and feed it SQL ideally without running a
postmaster and execing a back end)
I'm using VS2008 on XP by choice, and I'd like to investigate supporting
something close
Hi,
I managed to get most of 8.3 built with VS2008EE last night. Ii had to
change some references to msbuild to vsbuild, which I guess is expected
but one compile issue surprised me.
I had to change
#ifdef IPV6_V6ONLY
at backend/libpq/pqcomm.c:386
to:
#if defined(IPV6_V6ONLY) && (!define
Mark Mielke wrote:
I recall there being a measurable performance difference between the
most liberal parser, and the most optimized parser, back when I wrote
one for PostgreSQL. I don't know how good the one in use for
PostgreSQL 8.3 is. As to whether the cost is noticeable to people or
not -
Kenneth Marshall wrote:
conversion process themselves. Accepting random input puts a performance
hit on everybody following the standard.
Why is that necessarily the case?
Why not have a liberal parser and a configurable switch that determines
whether non-standard
forms are liberally accepted
Richard Huxton wrote:
It would be nice to have a more dynamic language built-in. I'm not
aware of any BSD-licensed dynamic languages though.
Lua is MIT. And I believe there's even a pl/Lua around. The small size
of the interpreter and ease of C interfacing
would make it ideal, or at least i
Tom Lane wrote:
There is, although I think a large fraction of it will get bounced as
"needs more work", which should reduce the pressure. We'll just be
trying to give feedback to let the patch authors move forward, which
will not take as much time as actually committing would take.
The current
Mark Mielke wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Unless you are going to *pay* for it - you do realize that the best
way to get it implemented, would be to open up the source code, and
give it a try yourself?
Because users possibly want to do that - use it? Some of us have better
things to do
Ron Mayer wrote:
Or do you mean being able to perform parts of the query plan fully in
parallel? If this, then one would need a lot more than ParallelSort...
I wouldn't recommend that - it seems like a Hard Problem.
Isn't it the case that the implicit unions from processing partitioned
Tom Lane wrote:
It is also pretty well established that if pltcl or plperl cause the
backend to become multithreaded, things break horribly. I strongly
Isn't that something that needs to be fixed? Its one thing not to allow
for multiple threads to
be in your code, but not having a threaded
Magnus Hagander wrote:
I did look at this at some earlier point as well. One big problem at that
time was that once you embedded mono, yuo had all sorts of threads running
in your backend ;-)
Is that necessarily a problem? You have to compile with a
thread-capable libc and take some
care tha
Magnus Hagander wrote:
IIRC, there hasn't been any direct benchmark for it (though I've wanted to do
that but had no time), but it's been the olnly real explanation put forward for
the behaviour we've seen. And it does make sense given the thread-centric view
of the windows mm.
/Magnus
Ho
Josh Berkus wrote:
Not only would they be generally useful for SP programming, but multisets
would eliminate one of the big hurdles in re-writing T-SQL stored
procedures in PG, and thus make it easier to port from SQL Server. You
don't hear a lot of demand for multisets on the mailing lists be
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Could we achieve the same thing in a more general way by having a
per-FK tiny (say 10?) LRU cache of values checked. Then it wouldn't
only be restricted to constant expressions. Of course, then the
trigger would need to keep state, so it might well be too complex
(e.g. wh
Decibel! wrote:
The advantage to Bruce's idea is that it sounds pretty simple to
implement. While it wouldn't be of use for many general cases, it
*would* be useful for read-only tables, ie: old partitions.
Wouldn't the mostcommon case by foreign key checks against tables that
essentially map
I've been looking at the new trigger features planned for Firebird 2.1
and I'm a bit jealous.
I'm interested in 'stateful' proc packages that can benefit from
accumulating data from updates
during a transaction and then performing an action at the end - perhaps
doing a bulk insert
in a pre-com
48 matches
Mail list logo
