On 5 April 2015 at 19:19, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Cool! Thanks for showing up.
Visibility <> Activity. How is REINDEX CONCURRENTLY doing?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, RemoteDBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-ha
On 04/05/2015 05:56 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
Committed. We move forwards, slowly but surely. Thanks for the patch.
Thanks to you and the reviewers for helping me out with this patch!
--
Andreas Karlsson
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to yo
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 7 February 2015 at 20:05, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>> On 01/30/2015 07:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>>
>>> Looking at the latest patch, it seems that in
>>> AlterTableGetLockLevel@tablecmds.c we ought to put AT_ReAddConstraint,
>>> AT_AddC
On 7 February 2015 at 20:05, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> On 01/30/2015 07:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> Looking at the latest patch, it seems that in
>> AlterTableGetLockLevel@tablecmds.c we ought to put AT_ReAddConstraint,
>> AT_AddConstraintRecurse and AT_ProcessedConstraint under the same
>
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> On 01/30/2015 07:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> Looking at the latest patch, it seems that in
>> AlterTableGetLockLevel@tablecmds.c we ought to put AT_ReAddConstraint,
>> AT_AddConstraintRecurse and AT_ProcessedConstraint under the sa
On 02/06/2015 08:16 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
On 01/30/2015 07:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Looking at the latest patch, it seems that in
AlterTableGetLockLevel@tablecmds.c we ought to put AT_ReAddConstraint,
AT_AddConstraintRecurse an
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> On 01/30/2015 07:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Looking at the latest patch, it seems that in
>> AlterTableGetLockLevel@tablecmds.c we ought to put AT_ReAddConstraint,
>> AT_AddConstraintRecurse and AT_ProcessedConstraint under the same
On 01/30/2015 07:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Ok, so the deal is to finally reduce the locks to
ShareRowExclusiveLock for the following commands :
- CREATE TRIGGER
- ALTER TABLE ENABLE/DISABLE
- ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT
Correct. I personally still find this useful enough to justify a patch.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> On 01/22/2015 10:31 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>>
>> I agree with this view, and am not sure myself that it is worth lowering
>> the lock level of ALTER TRIGGER RENAME. I have attached a patch without
>> the changes to ALTER TRIGGER and r
On 01/20/2015 10:08 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
Fair enough. It did reinforce pg_get_constraintdef() as a subroutine of
pg_dump rather than an independent, rigorous interface. It perhaps made the
function worse for non-pg_dump callers. In that vein, each one of these hacks
has a cost. One could mak
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 04:59:56PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-01-16 15:16:20 +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> > For this reason I opted to only lower the lock levels of ADD and ALTER
> > TRIGGER, and not DROP TRIGGER. Neither of those require MVCC of then
> > WHEN clause.
>
> I'm unconv
On 01/19/2015 06:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
This will give you: The old trigger name. The new table name. The new
column name. The new function name.
Ouch. That's clearly no good. I'm struggling to understand whether
this is a problem wi
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Just consider:
> S1: CREATE TABLE flubber(id serial primary key, data text);
> S1: CREATE FUNCTION blarg() RETURNS TRIGGER LANGUAGE plpgsql AS $$BEGIN
> RETURN NEW; END;$$;
> S1: CREATE TRIGGER flubber_blarg BEFORE INSERT ON flubber FOR EAC
On 2015-01-16 15:16:20 +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> Indeed. As Noah and I discussed previously in this thread we would need to
> do quite a bit of refactoring of ruleutils.c to make it fully MVCC.
Right.
> For this reason I opted to only lower the lock levels of ADD and ALTER
> TRIGGER, and n
On 01/16/2015 03:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
/*
-* Grab an exclusive lock on the pk table, so that someone doesn't
delete
-* rows out from under us. (Although a lesser lock would do for that
-* purpose, we'll need exclusive lock anyway to add triggers to the
Hi,
> /*
> - * Grab an exclusive lock on the pk table, so that someone doesn't
> delete
> - * rows out from under us. (Although a lesser lock would do for that
> - * purpose, we'll need exclusive lock anyway to add triggers to the pk
> - * table; trying to start with a l
On 01/14/2015 08:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
All those things gathered give the patch attached. Andreas, if you are
fine with it I think that we could pass it to a committer.
Excellent changes. Thanks for the patch and the reviews.
--
Andreas Karlsson
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
I wrote:
> I think that we could pass it to a committer.
Marked as such.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Thanks for the review.
Here is a new version of the patch with updated isolation tests and
documentation.
--
Andreas Karlsson
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml
index a0d6867..459e86d 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml
@@ -908,9 +908,10 @
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> get_rule_expr() relies heavily on the catcache which to me does not look
> like it could easily be (and probably not even should be) made to use the
> current snapshot. Refactoring ruleutils.c to rely less no the catcache seems
> like a re
I'm not sure about the rest of this but...
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> Is this patch
> worthwhile even without reducing the lock levels of the drop commands?
Yes! It certainly makes more sense to reduce the lock levels where we
can do that relatively easily, and p
Hi,
I have attached a patch with the current status of my work on reducing
the lock level of trigger and foreign key related DDL.
This commit reduces the lock level of the following commands from ACCESS
EXCLUSIVE to SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE, plus that it does the same for the
referred table of th
22 matches
Mail list logo
