On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 10:12:54AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 09:51:13AM -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
> > Let's touch on the exception in passing by using the phrase "last
> > truncated",
> > giving this wording for both the second and the third COPY FREEZE error
> > sites:
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:09:05PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Well, so you are saying that there really isn't any use-visible logic
> > for those messages to be different,
>
> No, and in fact the whole block of code is badly written because it
> conflates two unrelated tes
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Well, so you are saying that there really isn't any use-visible logic
> for those messages to be different,
No, and in fact the whole block of code is badly written because it
conflates two unrelated tests. I guess somebody was trying to save
a couple of nanoseconds by no
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 09:51:13AM -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
> > OK, so, should we change the error message:
> >
> > cannot perform FREEZE because of transaction activity after table
> > creation or truncation
> >
> > to
> >
> > cannot perform FREEZE because the table was not created
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 12:57:18PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 08:34:24PM -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:28:58PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > BEGIN;
> > > TRUNCATE vistest;
> > > SAVEPOINT s1;
> > > COPY vistest FROM stdin CSV FREEZE;
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 08:34:24PM -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:28:58PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:08:56PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > > ! ereport(ERROR,
> > > > !
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:28:58PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:08:56PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > ! ereport(ERROR,
> > > !
> > > (ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUI
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:28:58PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:08:56PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > ! ereport(ERROR,
> > > !
> > > (ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUI
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:08:56PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > ! ereport(ERROR,
> > !
> > (ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE,
> > ! errmsg("cannot perform FR
Bruce Momjian writes:
> ! ereport(ERROR,
> !
> (ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE,
> ! errmsg("cannot perform FREEZE
> because of previous table activity in the current tran
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 05:30:58PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > OK, updated patch attached that throws an error with a more specific
> > message.
>
>
> > *
> > * As noted above rd_newRelfilenodeSubid is not set in all cases
> > * where
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> >>> FWIW, and I won't annoy anyone further after this email, now that its
> >>> deterministic,
Bruce Momjian writes:
> OK, updated patch attached that throws an error with a more specific
> message.
>*
>* As noted above rd_newRelfilenodeSubid is not set in all cases
>* where we can apply the optimization, so in those rare cases
> !
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:55:12AM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian writes:
> >>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> FWIW, and I won't annoy a
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian writes:
>>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
FWIW, and I won't annoy anyone further after this email, now that its
deterministic, I sti
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> >>> FWIW, and I won't annoy anyone further after this email, now that its
> >>> deterministic, I still t
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> FWIW, and I won't annoy anyone further after this email, now that its
>>> deterministic, I still think that this should be an ERROR not a WARNING.
>
>> A
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
>> FWIW, and I won't annoy anyone further after this email, now that its
>> deterministic, I still think that this should be an ERROR not a WARNING.
> As the FREEZE is just an optimization, I thought NOTICE, vs
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:30:40AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2013-01-23 14:02:46 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > As a reminder, COPY FREEZE still does not issue any warning/
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2013-01-23 14:02:46 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > As a reminder, COPY FREEZE still does not issue any warning/notice if
> > > the freezing does not happen:
> >
> > FWIW, and I won'
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:48:37AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-01-23 14:02:46 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > As a reminder, COPY FREEZE still does not issue any warning/notice if
> > the freezing does not happen:
>
> FWIW, and I won't annoy anyone further after this email, now that its
On 2013-01-23 14:02:46 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> As a reminder, COPY FREEZE still does not issue any warning/notice if
> the freezing does not happen:
FWIW, and I won't annoy anyone further after this email, now that its
deterministic, I still think that this should be an ERROR not a WARNING.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 06:55:17PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> >> Didn't we want to issue the user some kind of feedback?
>
> > As no one wanted to write this patch, I have developed the attached
> > version.
>
> Please note the comment directly above where you patched.
>
>
Bruce Momjian writes:
>> Didn't we want to issue the user some kind of feedback?
> As no one wanted to write this patch, I have developed the attached
> version.
Please note the comment directly above where you patched.
The proposed message doesn't seem to me to be following the message
style g
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 05:30:22PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/24/13 5:09 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 02:02:46PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> As a reminder, COPY FREEZE still does not issue any warning/notice if
> >> the freezing does not happen:
>
> > As no
On 1/24/13 5:09 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 02:02:46PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> As a reminder, COPY FREEZE still does not issue any warning/notice if
>> the freezing does not happen:
> As no one wanted to write this patch, I have developed the attached
> version.
I th
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 02:02:46PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> As a reminder, COPY FREEZE still does not issue any warning/notice if
> the freezing does not happen:
>
> Requests copying the data with rows already frozen, just as they
> would be after running the VACUUM FREEZE command
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> As a reminder, COPY FREEZE still does not issue any warning/notice if
> the freezing does not happen:
>
> Requests copying the data with rows already frozen, just as they
> would be after running the VACUUM FREEZE command.
>
As a reminder, COPY FREEZE still does not issue any warning/notice if
the freezing does not happen:
Requests copying the data with rows already frozen, just as they
would be after running the VACUUM FREEZE command.
This is intended as a performance option for initial data loading
29 matches
Mail list logo
