On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 02:28 +0100, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 09:30:10PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > > We cannot perform partition exclusion using this type of WHERE clause at
> > > > planning time because the CURRENT DATE function is STABLE.
> > >
> > > We can do the exact
On 11/01/2008, Kris Jurka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Turns out it's not just 83RC1, but all of the security releases, which
> will require different pljava packages for the patch versions before/after
> the security changes. I've committed a fix to CVS for this, and I guess
> I'll try to respin
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 08:07:18AM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 02:28 +0100, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 09:30:10PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > > > We cannot perform partition exclusion using this type of WHERE clause
> > > > > at
> > > > > planning tim
In my striving towards more effective partitioning for Postgres, I see
we have one main decision to make and that all other sub-tasks are
driven directly by this one issue. The issue is: At what point we store
the data within the existing storage model? We discussed this in 2005
when I started to d
>
> 3. Partitions are RelFileNodes, but not Tables
>
> We allow a table to have multiple RelFileNodes, when explicitly declared
> that way.
>
> This means we have to change
> - DDL changes to allow TABLE level changes to apply to all RelFileNodes,
> while PARTITION level changes to apply to only on
Gavin,
I've responded to the technical questions you raise here:
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 02:22 +0100, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > After we note that a segment is read-only we can scan the segment and
> > record min/max values for all columns. These are then "implicit
> > constraints", which can then b
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 10:25 +0100, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> >
> > Of course. It's an identical situation for both. Regrettably, none of
> > your comments about dynamic partitioning and planning were accurate as a
> > result.
>
> That's not true. We will still have planning drive the partition
> sel
More dumb user questions...
Simon Riggs wrote:
1. Partitions are Contiguous Ranges of Blocks
Partitions are a simple subset of a table, i.e. a contiguous range of
blocks within the main block range of the table.
b) Fixed partitioning - we define partitions as static ranges of blocks,
which m
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 11:34 +, Richard Huxton wrote:
> 1. Make an on-disk "chunk" much smaller (e.g. 64MB). Each chunk is a
> contigous range of blocks.
> 2. Make a table-partition (implied or explicit constraints) map to
> multiple "chunks".
> That would reduce fragmentation (you'd have on a
Csaba Nagy wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 11:34 +, Richard Huxton wrote:
1. Make an on-disk "chunk" much smaller (e.g. 64MB). Each chunk is a
contigous range of blocks.
2. Make a table-partition (implied or explicit constraints) map to
multiple "chunks".
That would reduce fragmentation (you'd
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 11:34 +, Richard Huxton wrote:
> Is the following basically the same as option #3 (multiple RelFileNodes)?
>
> 1. Make an on-disk "chunk" much smaller (e.g. 64MB). Each chunk is a
> contigous range of blocks.
> 2. Make a table-partition (implied or explicit constraints)
Hi,
could anyone please enlighten me whether this function is still needed?
AFAICT check_escape_warning() only has significant action if
warn_on_first_escape is true. This variable is set to true only on label
xqstart, but to false on xestart. However, check_escape_warning() and
check_string_esca
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 12:53 -0800, Ron Mayer wrote:
> Is my understanding right that these Segment Visibility Maps could
> help this case as well?
Yes, I think so.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
---(end of broadcast)-
Version: PostgreSQL 8.2.5 on i686-pc-mingw32
I recently started getting this error message randomly, "could not open
relation 42904/42906/42985: Invalid argument". I also got it for a couple
of other files. All three files are related to tables that have just a
single row each.
I googled the er
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> could anyone please enlighten me whether this function is still needed?
> AFAICT check_escape_warning() only has significant action if
> warn_on_first_escape is true. This variable is set to true only on label
> xqstart, but to false on xestart. However,
> I've kept a list of requests for improvement that I can share with
you;
> I've always been loathe to publish a list of bad points.
I think it would help understand the proposal if you also present the
shortcomings.
When you presented the positive and negative points, the negative list
did look
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 11:34 +, Richard Huxton wrote:
Is the following basically the same as option #3 (multiple RelFileNodes)?
1. Make an on-disk "chunk" much smaller (e.g. 64MB). Each chunk is a
contigous range of blocks.
2. Make a table-partition (implied or explicit
Now that we have a txid_snapshot datatype, it seems easy to imagine that
we might use that to pass snapshot information around between sessions.
If we had a function
replace_serializable_snapshot(master_xid, txid_snapshot)
this would allow us to use the txid_snapshot values to replace ou
> Which is roughly what Simon's original "Dynamic Partitioning" would be
> if it became visible at the planner level (unless I've misunderstood). I
> was picturing it in my head as a two-dimensional bitmap with
> value-ranges along one axis and block-ranges along the other. Of course,
> unlike
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think we could make enforce_generic_type_consistency() clearer by
>> adding an additional argument "bool allow_poly" which specifies
>> whether polymorphic "actual" argument and result types are allowed.
> This sounds like a reasonable
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 11:49:50AM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 10:25 +0100, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > >
> > > Of course. It's an identical situation for both. Regrettably, none of
> > > your comments about dynamic partitioning and planning were accurate as a
> > > result.
> >
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 17:31 +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
> > I've kept a list of requests for improvement that I can share with
> you;
> > I've always been loathe to publish a list of bad points.
The "list of bad points" doesn't refer to shortcomings in my proposal,
which I would never
We have put up a new version of our extensions to the libpq api, here:
http://www.esilo.com/projects/postgresql/libpq/typesys-beta-0.9.tar.gz
Four functions are getting dropped and will be replaced with a generic
version taking a va_list. Also, in some functions result format is
being moved to t
Michael Meskes wrote:
Hi,
could anyone please enlighten me whether this function is still needed?
AFAICT check_escape_warning() only has significant action if
warn_on_first_escape is true. This variable is set to true only on label
xqstart, but to false on xestart. However, check_escape_warni
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 15:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> the whole thing gives me the willies.
Me too :-)
> > What I'm thinking about is how we might use this to have multiple
> > sessions working simultaneously on tasks like unloading data,
>
> Then what you want is a function that says "clone the
Sorry Greg , I missed to read this part before.
On Jan 9, 2008 8:40 PM, Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Markus Schiltknecht" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
> >> If we can ask the Vacuum process to scan the WAL log, it can get all
> the
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 20:39 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 15:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > If we had a function
> > > replace_serializable_snapshot(master_xid, txid_snapshot)
> > > this would allow us to use the txid_snapshot values
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 20:03 +0100, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> Okay, it's good that you want the planner to look at those. Did you
> consider the point I made about the sheer amount of data the planner
> would have to consider for large cases?
Sorry, thought I had somewhere in all those emails...
If y
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we had a function
> replace_serializable_snapshot(master_xid, txid_snapshot)
> this would allow us to use the txid_snapshot values to replace our
> transaction's serializable snapshot.
... whereupon we'd get wrong answers. Certainly you could no
>
> The user isn't going to have any legal way to transfer the data between
> backends anyway, since no transaction can see results of an uncommitted
> other transaction. There *has* to be some backdoor channel involved
> there, and you might as well make it carry the data without the user
> touch
Hi all,
Many of you will have read the dynamic partitioning thread here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-01/msg00028.php
I've proposed an alternative approach, which we've called declarative
partitioning which is grammar based. This grammar was developed by Jeff
Cohen at Greenp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Riggs) writes:
> On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 20:39 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 15:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > > If we had a function
>> > > replace_serializable_snapshot(master_xid, txid_snapshot)
>> > > this
Gavin Sherry wrote:
> CREATE TABLE is modified to accept a PARTITION BY clause. This clause
> contains one or more partition declarations. The syntax is as follows:
> PARTITION BY {partition_type} (column_name[, column_name...])
> [PARTITIONS number]
> (
>partition_declaration[, partition
Pardon my ignorance as I've never actually used partitioning before but
plan to in the near future, but couldn't the grammar resemble a common
WHERE clause more closely?
> ... PARTITION BY RANGE(order_date)
> (
> START (date '2005-12-01') end (date '2007-12-01')
>
On Jan 11, 2008 3:42 PM, Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What would be the drawbacks of
> CREATE TABLE tablename(...)
> PARTITION BY function_taking_row_returning_partition_name
> instead of the explicit types?
Would that still allow the optimizer to work as well as it could? It
seems t
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For (2) there's a very simple way of transferring the data between
> sessions:
> a) we connect on session 1 as a serializable transaction
> b) we ask session 1 for its snapshot
> c) we then connect on session 2 as a serializable transaction
> d) we then ex
On Jan 11, 2008 6:19 PM, Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Many of you will have read the dynamic partitioning thread here:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-01/msg00028.php
>
> I've proposed an alternative approach, which we've called declarative
> partition
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 07:46:36PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008 6:19 PM, Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Many of you will have read the dynamic partitioning thread here:
> >
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-01/msg00028.php
> >
> > I
On Jan 11, 2008, at 4:16 PM, Warren Turkal wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 3:42 PM, Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
What would be the drawbacks of
CREATE TABLE tablename(...)
PARTITION BY function_taking_row_returning_partition_name
instead of the explicit types?
Would that still allow the
Chris Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Note that we required that the "provider transaction" have the
> attributes IsXactIsoLevelSerializable and XactReadOnly both being
> true, so we have the mandates that the resultant backend process:
> a) Is in read only mode, and
> b) Is in serializable m
In CVS HEAD, why does exec_simple_query() pass an empty cursorOptions to
pg_plan_queries() at postgres.c:903? If we're planning DECLARE CURSOR,
ISTM we ought to be passing down the DECLARE CURSOR's cursorOptions.
-Neil
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP
On Jan 11, 2008, at 4:03 PM, Mike wrote:
Pardon my ignorance as I've never actually used partitioning before
but
plan to in the near future, but couldn't the grammar resemble a common
WHERE clause more closely?
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your suggestions. The current syntax we chose is similar
Simon Riggs wrote:
Happy New Year, everybody.
This proposal follows on from previous thinking about partitioning,
where I've taken up Andrew Sullivan's suggestion to re-examine the
current partitioning concept of using tables as partitions. So I've come
up with an alternative concept to allow us
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In CVS HEAD, why does exec_simple_query() pass an empty cursorOptions to
> pg_plan_queries() at postgres.c:903? If we're planning DECLARE CURSOR,
> ISTM we ought to be passing down the DECLARE CURSOR's cursorOptions.
This code doesn't know (or care) whethe
If you've paid any attention to our signal handling and shutdown
procedures, you know that there is a whole lot of design and logic
based on the assumption that during a forced system shutdown,
we will see SIGTERM delivered to all PG processes, with a little bit
of grace time before we get SIGKILL'
[ catching up on email... ]
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you hit tab on a table name containing a \ you get spammed with a
> series of WARNINGS and HINTS about nonstandard use of \\ in a string
> literal:
Yeah. This is actually a generic problem for *all* applications using
PQe
46 matches
Mail list logo
