On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 04/01/2014 08:39 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> On 03/07/2014 05:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fabr=EDzio_de_Royes_Mello?=
>>> writes:
Do you think is difficult to implement "ALTER TABLE ... SET UNLOGGED"
too?
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> No-one's replied yet, but perhaps the worry is that after you've written
> the commit record, you have to go ahead with removing/creating the init
> fork, and that is seen as too risky. If a creat() or unlink() call
> fails, that will have to be a PANIC, and crash r
On 2014-04-03 15:02:27 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04/03/2014 02:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >On 2014-04-03 13:38:29 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >>On 04/01/2014 08:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >>>On 2014-04-01 12:56:04 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 3/4/14, 8:50 AM, Andres Fre
On 04/03/2014 02:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-04-03 13:38:29 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 04/01/2014 08:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-04-01 12:56:04 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 3/4/14, 8:50 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Can't that be solved by just creating the permanent relatio
On 2014-04-03 13:38:29 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04/01/2014 08:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >On 2014-04-01 12:56:04 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
> >>On 3/4/14, 8:50 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >>>Can't that be solved by just creating the permanent relation in a new
> >>>relfilenode? That's e
On 2014-04-03 14:26:50 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04/01/2014 08:39 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >On 03/07/2014 05:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fabr=EDzio_de_Royes_Mello?= writes:
> >>>Do you think is difficult to implement "ALTER TABLE ... SET UNLOGGED" too?
> >>>Thinkin
On 04/01/2014 08:39 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 03/07/2014 05:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fabr=EDzio_de_Royes_Mello?= writes:
Do you think is difficult to implement "ALTER TABLE ... SET UNLOGGED" too?
Thinking in a scope of one GSoC, of course.
I think it's basically the same
On 2014-04-01 20:39:35 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 03/07/2014 05:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fabr=EDzio_de_Royes_Mello?= writes:
> >>Do you think is difficult to implement "ALTER TABLE ... SET UNLOGGED" too?
> >>Thinking in a scope of one GSoC, of course.
> >
> >I think it's
On 04/03/2014 01:44 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-04-03 13:38:29 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 04/01/2014 08:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-04-01 12:56:04 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 3/4/14, 8:50 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Can't that be solved by just creating the permanent relatio
On 2014-04-03 13:38:29 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04/01/2014 08:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >On 2014-04-01 12:56:04 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
> >>On 3/4/14, 8:50 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >>>Can't that be solved by just creating the permanent relation in a new
> >>>relfilenode? That's e
On 04/01/2014 08:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-04-01 12:56:04 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 3/4/14, 8:50 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Can't that be solved by just creating the permanent relation in a new
relfilenode? That's equivalent to a rewrite, yes, but we need to do that
for anything but wa
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Andres Freund
wrote:
>
> On 2014-04-01 13:37:57 -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> > In the GSoC proposal page [1] I received some suggestions to strech
goals:
> >
> > * "ALTER TABLE name SET UNLOGGED". This is essentially the reverse of
the
> > core proposal,
On 2014-04-01 12:56:04 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 3/4/14, 8:50 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >Can't that be solved by just creating the permanent relation in a new
> >relfilenode? That's equivalent to a rewrite, yes, but we need to do that
> >for anything but wal_level=minimal anyway.
>
> Maybe I'm
On 3/4/14, 8:50 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Can't that be solved by just creating the permanent relation in a new
relfilenode? That's equivalent to a rewrite, yes, but we need to do that
for anything but wal_level=minimal anyway.
Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't this actually involve writi
On 03/07/2014 05:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fabr=EDzio_de_Royes_Mello?= writes:
Do you think is difficult to implement "ALTER TABLE ... SET UNLOGGED" too?
Thinking in a scope of one GSoC, of course.
I think it's basically the same thing. You might hope to optimize it;
but you have
On 2014-04-01 13:37:57 -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> In the GSoC proposal page [1] I received some suggestions to strech goals:
>
> * "ALTER TABLE name SET UNLOGGED". This is essentially the reverse of the
> core proposal, which is "ALTER TABLE name SET LOGGED". Yes, I think that
> shoul
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fabr=EDzio_de_Royes_Mello?=
> writes:
> > Do you think is difficult to implement "ALTER TABLE ... SET UNLOGGED"
> too?
> > Thinking in a scope of one GSoC, of course.
>
> I think it's basically the same thing. You might hope to o
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fabr=EDzio_de_Royes_Mello?=
writes:
> > Do you think is difficult to implement "ALTER TABLE ... SET UNLOGGED"
too?
> > Thinking in a scope of one GSoC, of course.
>
> I think it's basically the same thing. You might hope to opti
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fabr=EDzio_de_Royes_Mello?= writes:
> Do you think is difficult to implement "ALTER TABLE ... SET UNLOGGED" too?
> Thinking in a scope of one GSoC, of course.
I think it's basically the same thing. You might hope to optimize it;
but you have to create (rather than remove) an init
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Robert Haas
wrote:
> >> I think this isn't a good design. Per the discussion between Andres
> >> and I, I think that I think you should do
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <
fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Robert Haas
wrote:
> > >> I think th
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Robert Haas
wrote:
> >> I think this isn't a good design. Per the discussion between Andres
> >> and I, I think that I think you should do
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think this isn't a good design. Per the discussion between Andres
>> and I, I think that I think you should do is make ALTER TABLE .. SET
>> LOGGED work just like VACUUM FULL,
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>
> I think this isn't a good design. Per the discussion between Andres
> and I, I think that I think you should do is make ALTER TABLE .. SET
> LOGGED work just like VACUUM FULL, with the exception that it will set
> a different relpersistence
On 6 March 2014 19:42, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Andres Freund
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 2014-03-04 12:54:02 -0500, Robert
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Andres Freund
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 2014-03-04 12:54:02 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Andres Fr
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <
fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Andres Freund
wrote:
> >
> > On 2014-03-04 12:54:02 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Andres Freund
wrote:
> > > > On 2014-03-04 09:47:08 -
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Andres Freund
wrote:
>
> On 2014-03-04 12:54:02 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Andres Freund
wrote:
> > > On 2014-03-04 09:47:08 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > Can't that be solved by just creating the permanent relation in a new
> >
On 2014-03-04 12:54:02 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2014-03-04 09:47:08 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Can't that be solved by just creating the permanent relation in a new
> > relfilenode? That's equivalent to a rewrite, yes, but we need t
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-03-04 09:47:08 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > I
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Andres Freund
wrote:
>
> On 2014-03-04 09:47:08 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Stephen Frost
wrote:
> > > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> > >> wrote:
>
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Andres Freund
wrote:
>
> On 2014-03-04 01:10:50 -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> > Today I do something like that:
> >
> > 1) create unlogged table tmp_foo ...
> > 2) populate 'tmp_foo' table (ETL scripts or whatever)
> > 3) start transaction
> > 4) lock tabl
On 2014-03-04 09:47:08 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> >> wrote:
> >> > Is the TODO item "make an unlogged table logged" [1] a good GS
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
>> wrote:
>> > Is the TODO item "make an unlogged table logged" [1] a good GSoC project?
>>
>> I'm pretty sure we found some problems in
On 2014-03-04 01:10:50 -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> Today I do something like that:
>
> 1) create unlogged table tmp_foo ...
> 2) populate 'tmp_foo' table (ETL scripts or whatever)
> 3) start transaction
> 4) lock table tmp_foo in access exclusive mode
> 5) update pg_class set relpersis
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Andres Freund
wrote:
>
> On 2014-03-03 12:08:26 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> > > wrote:
> > > > Is the TODO item "make an unlogged table logged" [1] a g
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Andres Freund
wrote:
>
> On 2014-03-03 12:44:26 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> > wrote:
> > > Is the TODO item "make an unlogged table logged" [1] a good GSoC
project?
> >
> > Another interesting project
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> wrote:
> > Is the TODO item "make an unlogged table logged" [1] a good GSoC
project?
>
> Another interesting project around unlogged tables would be to make it
> possible to have u
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> On 03/03/2014 05:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Stephen Frost writes:
> ...
> >> ISTR the discussion going something along the lines of "we'd have to
WAL
> >> log the entire table to do that, and if we have to do that, what's the
> >> point?".
On 2014-03-03 12:44:26 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> wrote:
> > Is the TODO item "make an unlogged table logged" [1] a good GSoC project?
>
> Another interesting project around unlogged tables would be to make it
> possible to have unlog
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
wrote:
> Is the TODO item "make an unlogged table logged" [1] a good GSoC project?
Another interesting project around unlogged tables would be to make it
possible to have unlogged indexes on fully-logged tables. That is
something that there
On 2014-03-03 12:08:26 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> > wrote:
> > > Is the TODO item "make an unlogged table logged" [1] a good GSoC project?
> >
> > I'm pretty sure we found some problems
On 03/03/2014 05:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
...
>> ISTR the discussion going something along the lines of "we'd have to WAL
>> log the entire table to do that, and if we have to do that, what's the
>> point?".
> IIRC, the reason you'd have to do that is to make the table conten
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
>> wrote:
>>> Is the TODO item "make an unlogged table logged" [1] a good GSoC project?
>> I'm pretty sure we found some problems in that design that we couldn't
>> fi
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> wrote:
> > Is the TODO item "make an unlogged table logged" [1] a good GSoC project?
>
> I'm pretty sure we found some problems in that design that we couldn't
> figure out how to solve. I d
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
wrote:
> Is the TODO item "make an unlogged table logged" [1] a good GSoC project?
I'm pretty sure we found some problems in that design that we couldn't
figure out how to solve. I don't have a pointer to the relevant
-hackers discussion o
Hi all,
Is the TODO item "make an unlogged table logged" [1] a good GSoC project?
Regards,
[1]
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aanlktinenzbrxdcwohkqbba2bhubfy8_c5jwrxlod...@mail.gmail.com
--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
>> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br
>> B
47 matches
Mail list logo
