On 18/11/2011, at 10:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Royce Ausburn wrote:
>> Thanks for the discussion so far all. Would it be worthwhile to make
>> another patch that addresses the points from Yeb's reviews? It's not
>> sound
On 17/11/2011, at 1:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> Not sure about the log line, but allowing pgstattuple to distinguish
>>> between recently-dead and quite-thoroughly-dead seems useful.
>>
>> The dividing line is enormous
The patch applies cleanly to the current git master and is in context diff format.The patch fails the regression tests because it is outputting new DETAIL line which four of tests aren't expecting. The tests will need to be updated.Functionality:The patch works as advertised. An insert or update
On 16/11/2011, at 12:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Royce Ausburn wrote:
>>> Personally I think some log output, done better, would have been more
>>> useful for me at the time. At the time I was trying to diagnose an
>>> ineffec
>
>
> Personally I think some log output, done better, would have been more useful
> for me at the time. At the time I was trying to diagnose an ineffective
> vacuum and postgres' logs weren't giving me any hints about what was wrong.
> I turned to the mailing list and got immediate help, bu
On 16/11/2011, at 8:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar nov 15 12:16:54 -0300 2011:
I guess this is a dumb question, but why don't we remove all the dead
tuples?
>
>>
On 16/11/2011, at 2:05 AM, Yeb Havinga wrote:
> On 2011-10-05 00:45, Royce Ausburn wrote:
>> Attached is v2 of my patch that doesn't update CATALOG_VERSION_NO. I've
>> also fixed the name of an argument to pgstat_report_vacuum which I don't
>> think was par
On 18/10/2011, at 1:00 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:30 PM, desmodemone wrote:
>> Seems an Oracle bug not Postgresql one!
>
> I don't think it's a bug for it to work. It'd probably work in
> PostgreSQL too, if you inserted (2) first and then (1). It's just
> that, as Tom
On 11/10/2011, at 11:38 PM, Yeb Havinga wrote:
> Declaration of cursors with named parameters is already part of PostgreSQL
> (so it is possible to use the parameter names in the cursor query instead of
> $1, $2, etc.) and it also already documented with an example, just a few
> lines above th
On 08/10/2011, at 1:56 AM, Yeb Havinga wrote:
> Attach is v2 of the patch.
>
> Mixed notation now raises an error.
>
> In contrast with what I said above, named parameter related errors are thrown
> before any syntax errors. I tested with raising syntax errors first but the
> resulting code w
Hi all,
I wonder, could the recent work on index only scans pave the way for auto
clustered tables? Consider a wide, mostly insert table with some subset of
columns that I'd like to cluster on. I'm after locality of tuples that are
very frequently fetched together, but not keen on the downtim
Forgive my ignorance -- do I need to be doing anything else now seeing as I
started the review?
On 07/10/2011, at 7:15 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2011/10/6 Robert Haas :
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> "David E. Wheeler" writes:
>> Would it then be added as an ali
Initial Review for patch:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-09/msg00744.php
Submission review
The patch is in context diff format and applies cleanly to the git master. The
patch includes an update to regression tests. The regression tests pass. The
patch does not include u
On 04/10/2011, at 11:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Royce Ausburn wrote:
>> - I'm not sure if I'm supposed to update CATALOG_VERSION_NO in catalog.h.
>> In this patch I have.
>
> Generally that is left to the committer, as the corre
On 28/09/2011, at 11:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Excerpts from Royce Ausburn's message of mar sep 27 21:28:26 -0300 2011:
>>> Tom's suggestion looks like it's less trivial that I can do just yet, but
>>> I'll take a look and ask for help if I need it.
>
>> It's not that d
stead if this feature isn't really worthwhile.
Tom's suggestion looks like it's less trivial that I can do just yet, but I'll
take a look and ask for help if I need it.
Cheers!
--Royce
On 28/09/2011, at 4:42 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Royce Ausburn wrote:
>
Hi all,
I spent a bit of today diagnosing a problem where long held transactions were
preventing auto vacuum from doing its job. Eventually I had set
log_autovacuum_min_duration to 0 to see what was going on. Unfortunately it
wasn't until I tried a VACUUM VERBOSE that I found there were dead
17 matches
Mail list logo
