Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> 2) You wrote that FDW can support or don't support write depending on
having corresponding functions.
> However it's likely some tables of same FDW could be writable while
another are not. I think we should
> have some mechanism for FDW telling whether particular table i
On 08.11.2012 07:59, Chen Huajun wrote:
I am sending patch for errcontext() function.
I use procedural languages to do some operation, but when error occurs
,the CONTEXT error messages from procedural languages doesn't display in
local language.
for example:
Simon Riggs wrote:
>> - I think that every feature of the line protocol should
>> be exposed in the C API.
>
> Exposing every possible bug in ther underlying protocol isn't the best
> plan though, especially when doing so complicates the API just to
> support this.
Well, I wouldn't call this a
On 8 November 2012 03:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed writes:
>> On 7 November 2012 22:04, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> This seems to me to be dangerous and unintuitive, not to mention
>>> underdocumented. I think it would be better to just not do anything if
>>> there is any INSTEAD rule, period.
>
On 19.10.2012 14:42, Amit kapila wrote:
On Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:49 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
Before implementing the timeout parameter, I think that it's better to change
both pg_basebackup background process and pg_receivexlog so that they
send back the reply message immediately when they r
Hi,
maybe this is a better group for this question?
I can't see why creating foreign key on table A referencing table B,
generates an AccessExclusiveLock on B.
It seems (to a layman :-) ) that only writes to B should be blocked.
I'm really interested if this is either expected effect or any open
On Thursday, November 08, 2012 2:04 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 19.10.2012 14:42, Amit kapila wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:49 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> Before implementing the timeout parameter, I think that it's better
> to change
> >> both pg_basebackup background process and
Hi hackers.
Are there any plans to include DEFERRABLE NOT NULL constraints in 9.3 so one can do this?
create table test(a varchar not null deferrable initially deferred);
This works in Oracle and is quite handy when working with ORMs.
Thanks.
--
Andreas Joseph Krogh mob: +47
On Thursday, November 08, 2012 1:45 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> Well, Magnus' proposed implementation supposed that the existing
> values
> >> *have* been loaded into the current session. I agree that with some
> >> locking and yet more code you
Amit Kapila escribió:
> 3. Two backends trying to write to .auto file
>we can use ".auto.lock" as the the lock by trying to create it in
> exclusive mode as the first step
>of the command. If it already exists then backend needs to wait.
So changing .auto settings would be nontr
On 8 November 2012 08:33, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> OK, yes I think we do need to be throwing the error at runtime rather
> than at plan time. That's pretty easy if we just keep the current
> error message...
Oh wait, that's nonsense (not enough caffeine). The rewrite code needs
to know whether there
On Thursday, November 08, 2012 12:28 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... we don't normally read the config file within-commands,
> >> and there are both semantic and implementation problems to overcome
> >> if you want to do so.
>
On 08-Nov-2012, at 13:35, "Albe Laurenz" wrote:
> Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>> 2) You wrote that FDW can support or don't support write depending on
> having corresponding functions.
>> However it's likely some tables of same FDW could be writable while
> another are not. I think we should
>> h
On Thursday, November 08, 2012 5:24 AM Greg Smith wrote:
> On 11/2/12 11:17 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > -Add a configuration subdirectory to the default installation.
> > Needs to follow the config file location, so things like the
> > Debian relocation of postgresql.conf still wor
On Thursday, November 08, 2012 8:07 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Amit Kapila escribió:
>
> > 3. Two backends trying to write to .auto file
> >we can use ".auto.lock" as the the lock by trying to create it
> in
> > exclusive mode as the first step
> >of the command. If it already exis
Amit Kapila escribió:
> On Thursday, November 08, 2012 8:07 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >The other way to
> > define this would be to have a lock that you grab and keep until end of
> > transaction, and the .auto.lock file is deleted if the transaction is
> > aborted; so have the .auto.lock -> .aut
On 8 November 2012 14:38, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 8 November 2012 08:33, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> OK, yes I think we do need to be throwing the error at runtime rather
>> than at plan time. That's pretty easy if we just keep the current
>> error message...
>
> Oh wait, that's nonsense (not enough
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 09:17:29PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Things look fine through 2k, but at 4k the duration of pg_dump, restore,
> and pg_upgrade (which is mostly a combination of these two) is 4x,
> rather than the 2x as predicted by the growth in the number of tables.
> To see how bad i
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 05:55:32PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter writes:
> > On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 05:04:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Should we be doing something
> >> about such cases, or is playing dumb correct?
>
> > The SQL standard handles deciding the behavior based on whether
David Fetter writes:
> There are three different WITH CHECK OPTION options:
> WITH CHECK OPTION
> WITH CASCADED CHECK OPTION
> WITH LOCAL CHECK OPTION
No, there are four: the fourth case being if you leave off the phrase
altogether. That's the only case we accept, and it corresponds to the
patc
On 11/07/2012 02:46 PM, David Fetter wrote:
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 12:55:03PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Hello,
So it is possible to do this in other ways but I thought it might be
interesting to allow people to define fifo or pipe as a
log_desination. This would allow a person to tail
On 11/07/2012 10:22 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 12:55 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
So it is possible to do this in other ways but I thought it might be
interesting to allow people to define fifo or pipe as a
log_desination.
You could do this with a logging hook as a pl
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 11:33:47AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter writes:
> > There are three different WITH CHECK OPTION options:
>
> > WITH CHECK OPTION
> > WITH CASCADED CHECK OPTION
> > WITH LOCAL CHECK OPTION
>
> No, there are four: the fourth case being if you leave off the phrase
>
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 16.10.2012 15:31, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>
>> On 15.10.2012 19:31, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>>> wrote:
On 15.10.2012 13:13, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
>
>>>
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
>> On 16.10.2012 15:31, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15.10.2012 19:31, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
>
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> For 9.2 we discussed having COPY setting tuples as frozen. Various
> details apply.
> Earlier threads:
> "RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe"
> "COPY with hints, rebirth"
>
> I was unhappy with changing the behaviour of TRUNCATE, and stil
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> In your generated output I see:
>
>
> Class 00 —
> Successful Completion
>
>
> It's just matter of CSS rule like
>
> td .EMPHASIS { font-size: 140%; }
>
> to make such labels more visible.
> --
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thursday, November 08, 2012 2:04 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> On 19.10.2012 14:42, Amit kapila wrote:
>> > On Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:49 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
>> >> Before implementing the timeout parameter, I think that it's better
>
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:45 AM, wrote:
> Are there any plans to include DEFERRABLE NOT NULL constraints in 9.3 so one
> can do this?
>
> create table test(a varchar not null deferrable initially deferred);
>
> This works in Oracle and is quite handy when working with ORMs.
Not to my knowledge ..
Dean Rasheed writes:
> On 8 November 2012 14:38, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> Oh wait, that's nonsense (not enough caffeine). The rewrite code needs
>> to know whether there are INSTEAD OF triggers before it decides
>> whether it's going to substitute the base relation. The fundamental
>> problem is th
On 11/7/12 9:17 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> As a followup to Magnus's report that pg_upgrade was slow for many
> tables, I did some more testing with many tables, e.g.:
>
> CREATE TABLE test991 (x SERIAL);
>
> I ran it for 0, 1k, 2k, ... 16k tables, and got these results:
>
> tables
Dean Rasheed writes:
> If we did nothing here then it would go on to either fire any INSTEAD
> OF triggers or raise an error if there aren't any. The problem with
> that is that it makes trigger-updatable views and auto-updatable views
> inconsistent in their behaviour with qualified INSTEAD rules
On 11/08/2012 11:10:39 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> > In your generated output I see:
> >
> >
> > Class 00 —
> > Successful Completion
> >
> >
> > It's just matter of CSS rule like
> >
> > td .EMPHASIS { font-size: 14
On 11/6/12 12:09 PM, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> --
> On 11/06/2012 10:41:04 AM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>> > On 11/06/2012 11:27 AM, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
>>> > > Hi,
>>> > >
>>> > > I'm trying to improve a table of PostgreSQL error codes
>>> > > in the PostgreSQL
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 4:34 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
Is there the way to know the number of pending entries in GIN index which
was created with FASTUPDATE = o
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:45 AM, wrote:
>> Are there any plans to include DEFERRABLE NOT NULL constraints in 9.3 so one
>> can do this?
>>
>> create table test(a varchar not null deferrable initially deferred);
>>
>> This works in Oracle and is quite handy when working wit
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
>> Ouch! I'm sorry to have sent truly buggy version, please abandon
>> v2 patch sent just before.
>>
>> Added include "access/transam.h" to syncrep.c and corrected the
>> name of XLB
On 8 November 2012 17:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed writes:
>> If we did nothing here then it would go on to either fire any INSTEAD
>> OF triggers or raise an error if there aren't any. The problem with
>> that is that it makes trigger-updatable views and auto-updatable views
>> inconsisten
Fujii Masao escribió:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >>> However, I've forgotten to treat other three portions in
> >>> walsender.c and syncrep.c also does XLogRecPtrIsInvalid( >>> which comes from WAL receiver>). This new patch includes the
> >>> changes for them.
> >
> For the log volume, would it help if there was some "unexpectedness"
> threshold? That is, if a statement exceeds the duration threshold, it
> gets explained, But then it only gets logged if the actual duration
> divided by the cost estimate exceeds some threshold.
Thing is, pg_stat_plans mak
The submitted patch for auto-updatable views uses rewriteManip.c's
ResolveNew() function to replace Vars referencing the view with Vars
referencing the underlying table. That's mostly all right, except that
ResolveNew has some hard-wired choices about what it should do if a Var
to be replaced does
Dean Rasheed writes:
> On 8 November 2012 17:37, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I believe that the right way to think about the auto-update
>> transformation is that it should act like a supplied-by-default
>> unconditional INSTEAD rule.
> But if you treat the auto-update transformation as a
> supplied-by-d
Tom Lane wrote:
> A possible objection to this is that most C compilers wouldn't complain
> if a call site is still trying to use the old convention of passing a
> CmdType value. In the core code, there are only four call sites and
> three are in rewriteHandler.c itself, so this isn't much of a p
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> A possible objection to this is that most C compilers wouldn't complain
>> if a call site is still trying to use the old convention of passing a
>> CmdType value. In the core code, there are only four call sites and
>> three are in rewriteHandler.c itse
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 02:35:34PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> A possible objection to this is that most C compilers wouldn't complain
> >> if a call site is still trying to use the old convention of passing a
> >> CmdType value. In the core code, ther
On 8 November 2012 17:07, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> For 9.2 we discussed having COPY setting tuples as frozen. Various
>> details apply.
>> Earlier threads:
>> "RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe"
>> "COPY with hints, rebirth"
>>
>> I was un
On 8 November 2012 19:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed writes:
>> On 8 November 2012 17:37, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I believe that the right way to think about the auto-update
>>> transformation is that it should act like a supplied-by-default
>>> unconditional INSTEAD rule.
>
>> But if you treat
While doing a rather contrived test of something else, using:
perl -le 'print "create table foo (x serial); drop table foo;"
foreach (1..1e6)'|psql
I noticed starvation of autovacuum launcher process and bloating of catalogs.
Basically the WaitLatch in autovacuum.c line 602 (in head) never retu
Dean Rasheed writes:
> create table bar(a int);
> create view bar_v as select * from bar;
> create rule bar_r as on insert to bar_v where new.a < 0 do instead nothing;
> insert into bar_v values(-1),(1);
> select * from bar_v;
> a
> ---
> 1
> (1 row)
> Having that put both -1 and 1 into bar see
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
> Should gettimeofday be called before and after the poll() and then the
> difference deducted from timeout?
>
Something like this?
poll_timeout.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql
Jeff Janes writes:
> Basically the WaitLatch in autovacuum.c line 602 (in head) never returns.
> This was introduced by a180776f7a1c4554f214b, "Teach unix_latch.c to
> use poll() where available"
> When the poll() gets EINTR by SIGUSR1 for the invalidation, it
> restarts at the full timeout (60
Jeff Janes writes:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> Should gettimeofday be called before and after the poll() and then the
>> difference deducted from timeout?
> Something like this?
Meh. Not like that, because
(1) we shouldn't add overhead when no timeout is requested.
I wrote:
> Jeff Janes writes:
>> When the poll() gets EINTR by SIGUSR1 for the invalidation, it
>> restarts at the full timeout (60 seconds in this case) with no
>> accounting for the time already waited.
> Hmm. That seems like a problem, all right, but I don't believe the
> claim that it applie
On 8 November 2012 20:36, Jeff Janes wrote:
> It does not seem outrageous to me that there would be real-world
> conditions in which invalidations would be sent more than once a
> minute over prolonged periods, so this total starvation seems like a
> bug.
Yes, its a bug, but do you really believ
On 2012-11-08 22:40:43 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 8 November 2012 20:36, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
> > It does not seem outrageous to me that there would be real-world
> > conditions in which invalidations would be sent more than once a
> > minute over prolonged periods, so this total starvation see
On 11/08/2012 11:40 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 8 November 2012 20:36, Jeff Janes wrote:
It does not seem outrageous to me that there would be real-world
conditions in which invalidations would be sent more than once a
minute over prolonged periods, so this total starvation seems like a
bug.
Ye
On 11/08/2012 08:51 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 8 November 2012 17:07, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
For 9.2 we discussed having COPY setting tuples as frozen. Various
details apply.
Earlier threads:
"RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe"
"COPY wit
Simon Riggs writes:
> On 8 November 2012 20:36, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> It does not seem outrageous to me that there would be real-world
>> conditions in which invalidations would be sent more than once a
>> minute over prolonged periods, so this total starvation seems like a
>> bug.
> Yes, its a b
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> As a followup to Magnus's report that pg_upgrade was slow for many
> tables, I did some more testing with many tables, e.g.:
>
...
>
> Any ideas? I am attaching my test script.
Have you reviewed the thread at:
http://archives.postgresql.org/
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On 11/08/2012 11:40 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> On 8 November 2012 20:36, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>
>>> It does not seem outrageous to me that there would be real-world
>>> conditions in which invalidations would be sent more than once a
>>> minu
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 03:46:09PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > As a followup to Magnus's report that pg_upgrade was slow for many
> > tables, I did some more testing with many tables, e.g.:
> >
> ...
> >
> > Any ideas? I am attaching my test
As I understand it, the main part of the remaining work to be done for
the checksums patch (at least the first commit) is to have a better way
to enable/disable them.
For the sake of simplicity (implementation as well as usability), it
seems like there is agreement that checksums should be enabled
I wrote:
>> Hmm. That seems like a problem, all right, but I don't believe the
>> claim that it applies only to the poll() code path. On many platforms
>> the select() path would have the same issue.
> BTW, doesn't win32_latch.c have the identical problem? I don't see it
> updating the timeout
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Jeff Janes writes:
>>> Since commit 1eb1dde049ccfffc42c80c2, Have make never delete
>>> intermediate files automatically, I've frequently been getting errors
>>> doing make -j2 after a maintainer-clean.
>
>> Worksforme on a Fedora 16
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> > For whatever it's worth... we (and presumably others) still use londiste
> (or
> > Slony) as our upgrade path, so we could tolerate a cluster-wide setting.
> > We'd just set it when buildi
Jeff Davis wrote:
> And the next question is what commands to add to change state. Ideas:
>
>CHECKSUMS ENABLE; -- set state to "Enabling"
>CHECKSUMS DISABLE; -- set state to "Off"
>
> And then to get to the "On" state, you have to run a system-wide VACUUM
> while in the "Enabling" state.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:30:11PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 11/7/12 9:17 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > As a followup to Magnus's report that pg_upgrade was slow for many
> > tables, I did some more testing with many tables, e.g.:
> >
> > CREATE TABLE test991 (x SERIAL);
> >
> > I ra
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 03:46:09PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > As a followup to Magnus's report that pg_upgrade was slow for many
>> > tables, I did some more testing with many tables,
On Friday, November 09, 2012 6:32 AM Jeff Davis wrote:
> As I understand it, the main part of the remaining work to be done for
> the checksums patch (at least the first commit) is to have a better way
> to enable/disable them.
>
> For the sake of simplicity (implementation as well as usability),
On 09/11/12 02:01, Jeff Davis wrote:
As I understand it, the main part of the remaining work to be done for
the checksums patch (at least the first commit) is to have a better way
to enable/disable them.
For the sake of simplicity (implementation as well as usability), it
seems like there is agr
Jeff Janes writes:
> Are sure the server you are dumping out of is head?
I experimented a bit with dumping/restoring 16000 tables matching
Bruce's test case (ie, one serial column apiece). The pg_dump profile
seems fairly flat, without any easy optimization targets. But
restoring the dump scrip
On Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:42 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 08, 2012 2:04 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> On 19.10.2012 14:42, Amit kapila wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:49 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> >
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Ants Aasma wrote:
> I also took two profiles (attached). AtEOXact_RelationCache seems to
> be the culprit for the quadratic growth.
One more thing that jumps out as quadratic from the profiles is
transfer_all_new_dbs from pg_upgrade (20% of total CPU time at 64k).
On 8 November 2012 21:13, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed writes:
>> create table bar(a int);
>> create view bar_v as select * from bar;
>> create rule bar_r as on insert to bar_v where new.a < 0 do instead nothing;
>> insert into bar_v values(-1),(1);
>> select * from bar_v;
>> a
>> ---
>> 1
>>
74 matches
Mail list logo
