Re: [HACKERS] Row Level Security Documentation

" on an entry so that it spans more > rows. > Done. I couldn't figure out a morecols=1 equivalent to keep everything under the Policy heading without a full colspec. > For empty cells, maybe a dash would be clearer. Not sure. Looked cluttered to me. Tried N/A first which was ev

Re: [HACKERS] RLS in CTE incorrect permission failure

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Rod Taylor <rod.tay...@gmail.com> writes: > > In the attached script, the second insert into t2 (as part of the CTE) > > should succeed. > > No, I don't think so. You declared the check

[HACKERS] RLS in CTE incorrect permission failure

this policy to a number of structures. The function within the policy doesn't seem to be able to see records inserted by earlier statements in the CTE. Perhaps this is as simple as adding a command counter increment in the right place? Fails in 9.5.7 and HEAD. -- Rod Taylor cte_rls_fail.sql

Re: [HACKERS] Row Level Security Documentation

Of course, better thoughts appear immediately after hitting the send button. This version of the table attempts to stipulate which section of the process the rule applies to. On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Rod Taylor <rod.tay...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the biggest piec

[HACKERS] Row Level Security Documentation

I think the biggest piece missing is something to summarize the giant blocks of text. Attached is a table that has commands and policy types, and a "yes" if it applies. -- Rod Taylor diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_policy.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_policy.sgml index

Re: [HACKERS] Row Level Security UPDATE Confusion

chance, would be great for you to check that you no longer see a > difference between the single ALL policy and the split SELECT/UPDATE > policies. > > Thanks! > > Stephen > -- Rod Taylor

Re: [HACKERS] Row Level Security UPDATE Confusion

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > Rod, > > * Rod Taylor (rod.tay...@gmail.com) wrote: > > My actual use-case involves a range. Most users can see and manipulate > the > > record when CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is within active

Re: [HACKERS] Row Level Security UPDATE Confusion

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Rod Taylor <rod.tay...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > >> Rod, all, >> >> * Joe Conway (m...@joeconway.com) wrote: >> > On 04/13/20

Re: [HACKERS] Row Level Security UPDATE Confusion

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > Rod, all, > > * Joe Conway (m...@joeconway.com) wrote: > > On 04/13/2017 01:31 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > > >> On Thu, A

[HACKERS] Row Level Security UPDATE Confusion

42501: new row violates row-level security policy for table "t" LOCATION: ExecWithCheckOptions, execMain.c:2045 */ SET session authorization default; SELECT * FROM t; This seems consistent in both Pg 9.5 and upcoming Pg 10. -- Rod Taylor

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: Make it possible to disallow WHERE-less UPDATE and DELETE

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > Identification of unjoined tables should be very useful - but it is far > to > > original proposal - so it can be solved separately. > > > > This patch is simple - and usually we prefer

Re: [HACKERS] Design for In-Core Logical Replication

nced. An initial implementation may only allow mypub from a single connection. I also suspect multiple publications will be normal even if only 2 nodes. Old slow moving data almost always got different treatment than fast-moving data; even if only defining which set needs to hit the other node firs

Re: [HACKERS] array of domain types

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik < k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > On 02.06.2016 17:22, Tom Lane wrote: > >> konstantin knizhnik writes: >> >>> Attached please find patch for DefineDomain function. >>> >> You didn't attach the patch, >> > >

Re: [HACKERS] LOCK TABLE .. DEFERRABLE

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > If a lock is successfully obtained on one table, but not on all tables, it >> releases that lock and will retry to get them as a group in the future. >> Since inheritance acts as a group of tables (top + recursive

[HACKERS] LOCK TABLE .. DEFERRABLE

hose locks. It also keeps a list of everything it did lock so they can be unlocked if necessary. I'll add it to the open November commitfest. regards, Rod Taylor diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/lock.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/lock.sgml index b946eab..e852f1d 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/lock.sgml +++

Re: [HACKERS][PROPOSAL] Covering + unique indexes.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Anastasia Lubennikova < a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > > Proposal Clarification. > I see that discussion become too complicated. So, I'd like to clarify > what we are talking about. > > We are discussing 2 different improvements of index. > The one is

Re: [HACKERS] Allow snapshot too old error, to prevent bloat

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote: But max_standby_streaming_delay, max_standby_archive_delay and hot_standby_feedback are among the most frequent triggers for questions and complaints that I/we see. Agreed. And a really bad one used to be

Re: [HACKERS] Column Redaction

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote: * Thom Brown (t...@linux.com) wrote: On 10 October 2014 12:45, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote: There's a difference between intending that there shouldn't be a way past security and just making access a

Re: [HACKERS] A worst case for qsort

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote: I think that pre-sorted, all-unique text datums, that have all differences beyond the first 8 bytes, that the user happens to actually want to sort are fairly rare. While I'm sure it's not common, I've seen a couple of

Re: [HACKERS] A worst case for qsort

to reduce conflict issues that a random ordering may cause between jobs. regards, Rod On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Rod Taylor rod.tay...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote: I think that pre-sorted, all-unique text datums, that have all

Re: [HACKERS] Suppressing unused subquery output columns

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I'm not entirely convinced that it's worth the extra planning cycles, though. Given the small number of complaints to date, it might not be worth doing this. Thoughts? Would this avoid execution of expensive functions in

Re: [HACKERS] How can we make beta testing better?

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Hackers, I think 9.3 has given us evidence that our users aren't giving new versions of PostgreSQL substantial beta testing, or if they are, they aren't sharing the results with us. How can we make beta testing better

Re: [HACKERS] Changeset Extraction v7.3

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote: On 2014-01-28 21:48:09 +, Thom Brown wrote: On 28 January 2014 21:37, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: I've rebased it here

Re: [HACKERS] GIN improvements part2: fast scan

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Rod Taylor rod.tay...@gmail.com wrote: The patched index is 58% of the 9.4 master size. 212 MB instead of 365 MB. Good. That's meet my expectations :) You mention that both

Re: [HACKERS] GIN improvements part2: fast scan

I checked out master and put together a test case using a small percentage of production data for a known problem we have with Pg 9.2 and text search scans. A small percentage in this case means 10 million records randomly selected; has a few billion records. Tests ran for master successfully

Re: [HACKERS] GIN improvements part2: fast scan

a mistake. Reordering the terms 'hotel and the' doesn't change the result. On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Rod Taylor r...@simple-knowledge.comwrote: I checked out master and put together a test case using a small

Re: [HACKERS] GIN improvements part2: fast scan

, and ran it again thinking I made a mistake. Reordering the terms 'hotel and the' doesn't change the result. On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Rod Taylor r...@simple-knowledge.comwrote: I checked out master

Re: [HACKERS] GIN improvements part2: fast scan

home remedies removing rust heating does non raw apple cider home remedies help maintain healthy can vinegar mess up your apple cide vineger ph balance regards, Rod On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Rod Taylor p

Re: [HACKERS] GIN improvements part2: fast scan

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Rod Taylor rod.tay...@gmail.com wrote: 2%. It's essentially sentence fragments from 1 to 5 words in length. I wasn't expecting it to be much smaller. 10 recent value selections

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench progress report improvements

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr wrote: I suggest getting the term stddev in there somehow, maybe like this: progress: 37.0 s, 115.2 tps, latency avg=8.678 ms stddev=1.792 My issue is to try to keep the line width under control so as to avoid line

Re: [HACKERS] record identical operator

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote: Of course, that begs the question of whether == is already taken. If not, we could knock one '=' off of everything above except for equals. What existing uses are known for == ? == is already taken as a common typo in

[HACKERS] FKey not enforced resulting in broken Dump/Reload

A poorly coded trigger on the referencing table has the ability to break foreign keys, and as a result create a database which cannot be dumped and reloaded. The BEFORE DELETE trigger accidentally does RETURN NEW, which suppresses the DELETE action by the foreign key trigger. This allows the

[HACKERS] GIN over array of ENUMs

I wish to create this data structure but GIN does not currently support an array of ENUM. Is intarray() a good place to look into adding ENUM support or is there already an operator class for working supports enums that I simply don't see at the moment. This is being done as an alternative to a

[HACKERS] Time bug with small years

I have no idea what is going on with the minutes/seconds, particularly for years under 1895 where it gets appended onto the timezone component? sk_test=# select version(); version

Re: [HACKERS] foreign keys for array/period contains relationships

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 15:11, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: Example #4: PK is period, FK is timestamp. FK must be contained in some PK period. CREATE TABLE pk (a period PRIMARY KEY, ...); CREATE TABLE fk (x timestamp REFERENCES pk (a), ...); As above, we can probably arrange

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: cross column correlation ...

But it's not the same as tracking *sections of a table*. I dunno. I imagine if you have a section of a table in different storage than other sections, you created a tablespace and moved the partition holding that section there. Otherwise, how do you prevent the tuples from moving to other

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: cross column correlation ...

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 14:26, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.comwrote: Excerpts from Rod Taylor's message of vie feb 25 14:03:58 -0300 2011: How practical would it be for analyze to keep a record of response times for given sections of a table as it randomly accesses them and

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: cross column correlation ...

4. Even if we could accurately estimate the percentage of the table that is cached, what then? For example, suppose that a user issues a query which retrieves 1% of a table, and we know that 1% of that table is cached. How much of the data that the user asked for is cache? Hard to say,

[HACKERS] 8.3 to 8.4 Upgrade issues

We recently upgraded from 8.3 to 8.4 and have seen a performance degredation which we are trying to explain and I have been asked to get a second opinion on the cost of going from LATIN1 to UTF8 (Collation and CType) where the encoding remained SQL_ASCII.. Does anybody have experience on the

Re: [HACKERS] 8.3 to 8.4 Upgrade issues

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 13:49, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Rod Taylor rod.tay...@gmail.com writes: Does anybody have experience on the cost, if any, of making this change? Pg 8.3: Encoding: SQL_ASCII LC_COLLATE: en_US LC_CTYPE: en_US Pg 8.4: Encoding: SQL_ASCII Collation

[HACKERS] CIText and pattern_ops

Is there any particular reason why the citext module doesn't have citext_pattern_ops operator family? Specifically, I wish to index for this type of query: ... WHERE citext_column LIKE 'Foo%'; This, of course, is equivalent to ILIKE 'Foo%' which does not appear to be indexable without using a

Re: [HACKERS] PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 13:20, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com wrote: Perl (DBD::Pg anyway) has been compatible since May 2008. I would interpret that to mean that there is a significant possibility that a

[HACKERS] update_process_title=off and logger, wal, ... processes

With the update_process_title parameter set to off some PostgreSQL processes still change their ps title to a different name than the default. I appreciate this setting came about for performance reasons which the logger, wal writer, autovacuum, and stats collector would not have but I actually

[HACKERS] NOT IN Doesn't use Anti Joins?

I'm sure there is a good reason why NOT IN will not use an Anti-Join plan equivalent to NOT EXISTS due to NULL handling, but in this particular case the value being compared is in the PRIMARY KEY of both structures being joined. The NOT IN plan was killed after 10 minutes. The NOT EXISTS plan

Re: [HACKERS] Using views for row-level access control is leaky

\c - secretary CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION expose_person (person text, phone text) RETURNS bool AS $$ begin  RAISE NOTICE 'person: % number: %', person, phone;  RETURN true; END; $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql COST 0.01; postgres=  SELECT * FROM phone_number WHERE expose_person(person, phone);

Re: [HACKERS] Could regexp_matches be immutable?

So, having dismissed my original off-the-cuff answer to Rod, the next question is what's really going wrong for him.  I get this from a quick trial: I wish I had kept specific notes on what I was actually trying to do. I tried to_number first then the expression as seen below. I guess I saw

[HACKERS] Could regexp_matches be immutable?

I tried making a functional index based on an expression containing the 2 argument regexp_matches() function. Is there a reason why this function is not marked immutable instead of normal? regards, Rod Taylor -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes

Re: [HACKERS] COPY enhancements

Yeah. I think it's going to be hard to make this work without having standalone transactions. One idea would be to start a subtransaction, insert tuples until one fails, then rollback the subtransaction and start a new one, and continue on until the error limit is reached. I've found

Re: [HACKERS] remove flatfiles.c

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 19:34, Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu wrote: On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Alvaro Herreraalvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote: The use cases where VACUUM FULL wins currently are where storing two copies of the table and its indexes concurrently just isn't practical.

Re: [HACKERS] Out parameters handling

It wouldn't be so bad if you could assign internal and external column names. Within the function you call the column v_foo but the caller of the function receives column foo instead. OUT v_foo varchar AS foo Another alternative is requiring a prefix like plout for the replacement to occur: (

Re: [HACKERS] Out parameters handling

actually - function name should be used as label now. This code is working: Not helpful for me. The most typical conflict I have is actually the OUT parameter and table name, not a column of the table. Really don't want to prefix all tables with a hardcoded schema or do variable substitution

Re: [HACKERS] Out parameters handling

On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Rod Taylor rod.tay...@gmail.com wrote: It wouldn't be so bad if you could assign internal and external column names. This is a good point.  Uglifying

Re: FWD: Re: [HACKERS] Updated backslash consistency patch

I would settle for just following the search path as set by the user. If you explicitly include pg_catalog in the search path, then you should see those settings. If you do not explicitly include pg_catalog on the search_path, then it should not find those items. Right now pg_catalog sneaks

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: default values for function parameters

How about IS or INTO? param_name IS 3 param_name IS 'some string value' 3 INTO param_name 'some string value' INTO param_name On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: 2008/12/12 David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com: On Dec 12, 2008, at 2:39 PM, Tom

Re: [HACKERS] New feature request: FlashBack Query

Wrong. When Oracle says it's committed, it's committed. No difference between when, where, and how. In Oracle, the committed version is *always* the first presented to the user... it takes time to go back and look at older versions; but why shouldn't that be a bit slower, it isn't common

Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum on by default?

On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 18:32 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Is it time to turn on autovacuum by default in 8.2? I know we wanted to be on the side of caution with 8.1, but perhaps we should evaluate the experiences now. Comments? I would say yes. I use it on 2 databases over the 200GB mark

Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion is not general enough

On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 16:54 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 14:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I was just looking at Martin Lesser's gripe here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-08/msg00053.php about how the planner is not real bright about the filter

Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion is not general enough

On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 13:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A simple way of doing this might be to use a minimum cost number? But you don't have any cost numbers until after you've done the plan. Isn't it possible to find the cost using the straight forward (fast

Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion is not general enough

On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 22:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Florian G. Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: But you don't have any cost numbers until after you've done the plan. Couldn't this work similar to geqo_effort? The planner could try planning the query using only cheap

Re: GENERATED ... AS IDENTITY, Was: Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze

On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 18:10 +0200, Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote: Hi, I have progressed a bit with my pet project, a.k.a $SUBJECT. Now GENERATED ALWAYS AS IDENTITY and GENERATED ALWAYS AS ( expr ) work as intended. Documentation was also extended. I'm only commenting because I debated trying

Re: GENERATED ... AS IDENTITY, Was: Re: [HACKERS] Feature Freeze

For db restoration (pg_dump), how do you restore to the same values as previously if it is always regenerated? By making ALWAYS a suggestion for some users instead of always enforced and providing an override mechanism for it. I assume it only works for relation owners but I've not

[HACKERS] Connection limit and Superuser

It appears that the superuser does not have connection limit enforcement. I think this should be changed. Slony in particular does not need more than N connections but does require being a super user. -- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain

Re: [HACKERS] Connection limit and Superuser

On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 09:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It appears that the superuser does not have connection limit enforcement. I think this should be changed. If you're superuser, you are not subject to access restrictions, by definition. I cannot

Re: [HACKERS] Connection limit and Superuser

On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 15:07 +0200, Csaba Nagy wrote: On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 15:00, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 08:47:38AM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote: It appears that the superuser does not have connection limit enforcement. I think this should be changed. So

Re: [HACKERS] Connection limit and Superuser

On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 15:00 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 08:47:38AM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote: It appears that the superuser does not have connection limit enforcement. I think this should be changed. So if some admin process goes awry and uses up all

Re: [HACKERS] Connection limit and Superuser

On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 09:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: Maybe someone should look into enabling slony to not run as a superuser? That was my initial reaction to this suggestion. But then I realised that it might well

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] extension for sql update

On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 17:26 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2006 22:58 schrieb Tom Lane: The reason people want this syntax is that they expect to be able to write, say, UPDATE mytab SET (foo, bar, baz) = (SELECT alpha, beta, gamma FROM othertab WHERE

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] extension for sql update

On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 20:20 -0400, Robert Treat wrote: On Thursday 27 July 2006 09:28, Bruce Momjian wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: UPDATE mytab SET (foo, bar, baz) = (SELECT alpha, beta, gamma FROM othertab WHERE key = mytab.key);

Re: [HACKERS] Better name/syntax for online index creation

SHARED CREATE INDEX Comments? CREATE [UNIQUE] INDEX foo [WITH NOLOCK] ON ... -- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Re: [HACKERS] Better name/syntax for online index creation

Sorry, hit send too quickly. NOLOCK is kinda like NOWAIT, except implies that the command will not take a strong lock instead of stating that it will not wait for one. On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 11:20 -0400, Rod Taylor wrote: SHARED CREATE INDEX Comments? CREATE [UNIQUE] INDEX foo

Re: [HACKERS] Three weeks left until feature freeze

On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 11:03 -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: On 7/13/06, Lukas Smith wrote: However I do think that PostgreSQL is missing out in getting new users aboard that are in the early stages of evalutation and simply only consider features that they get along with a default

Re: [HACKERS] pg_terminate_backend idea

On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 23:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes: Tom Lane wrote: In any case the correct way to solve the problem is to find out what's being left corrupt by SIGTERM, rather than install more messiness in order to avoid facing the real issue

Re: [HACKERS] vacuum, performance, and MVCC

Here we have for example some tables which are frequently updated but contain 100 million rows. Vacuuming that takes hours. And the dead row candidates are the ones which are updated again and again and looked up frequently... This demonstrates that archival material and active data

Re: [HACKERS] vacuum, performance, and MVCC

You mean systems that are designed so exactly, that they can't take 10% performance change ? No, that's not really the point, performance degrades over time, in one minute it degraded 10%. The update to session ratio has a HUGE impact on PostgreSQL. If you have a thousand active

Re: [HACKERS] vacuum, performance, and MVCC

On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 13:42 -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: On 6/22/06, Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you INSERT into multiple partitions (by time -- say one per minute) and TRUNCATE periodically (30 minute old partitions for 30 minute expiry) it works much better. Expiring

Re: [HACKERS] postgresql and process titles

I did have dbt2 pretty close to functional on FreeBSD a year ago but it's probably gone back into linuxisms since then. :( I won't have the chance to work on this further for another 2 months, but if you have patches I could see about picking up on them when I get back. Everything has

Re: [HACKERS] postgresql and process titles

On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 14:18 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 12:29:14PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: Unless supersmack has improved substantially, you're unlikely to find much interest. Last I heard it was a pretty brain-dead benchmark. DBT2/3

Re: [HACKERS] CSV mode option for pg_dump

On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 16:28 -0400, Bill Bartlett wrote: Can't -- the main production database is over at a CoLo site with access only available via SSH, and tightly-restricted SSH at that. Generally one of the developers will SSH over to the server, pull out whatever data is needed into a text

Re: [HACKERS] Extended SERIAL parsing

The condition (column-is_serial column-force_default) can help enforcing GENERATED ALWAYS at INSERT time and can also help fixing the two TODO entries about SERIAL. You will need to include the insert components of the spec which allow for overriding GENERATED ALWAYS during an INSERT and

Re: [HACKERS] How to avoid transaction ID wrap

On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 13:53 -0400, Christopher Browne wrote: Clinging to sanity, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hannu Krosing) mumbled into her beard: Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-06-06 kell 08:42, kirjutas Mark Woodward: OK, here's my problem, I have a nature study where we have about 10 video cameras

Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about planner's cost estimates

One objection to this is that after moving off the gold standard of 1.0 = one page fetch, there is no longer any clear meaning to the cost estimate units; you're faced with the fact that they're just an arbitrary scale. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing, though. For instance, some people

Re: [HACKERS] [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?

On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 09:11 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 02:58:11PM -0400, Mark Woodward wrote: The reality is that MySQL is widely supported by some very, shall we say, interesting open source projects and using these products with

Re: [HACKERS] Compression and on-disk sorting

Actually, I suspect in most cases it won't matter; I don't think people make a habit of trying to sort their entire database. :) But we'd want to protect for the oddball cases... yech. I can make query result sets that are far larger than the database itself. create table

Re: [HACKERS] Number of dimensions of an array parameter

thhal=# CREATE DOMAIN twodims as int[][]; CREATE DOMAIN While still not perfect, you can use a CHECK constraint on the domain to enforce dimension. It's not perfect because domain constraints are not enforced in all locations in versions earlier than 8.2. Adding extra explicit casts can often

[HACKERS] 8.1.3 and unused files

Am I correct in the thought that the various files listed below are not used by the database and can be safely removed? There were no other active db connections when I issued this command. I think truncate (Slony) left them behind. ssdb=# select file from pg_ls_dir('base/'|| (select oid

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1.3 and unused files

On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 14:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Am I correct in the thought that the various files listed below are not used by the database and can be safely removed? There were no other active db connections when I issued this command. I think

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1.3 and unused files

On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 14:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At some point it must have failed in copying the data across, aborted, and restarted. Unless you had an actual backend crash, that's not an adequate explanation. Transaction abort does clean up

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1.3 and unused files

On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 15:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 14:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Unless you had an actual backend crash, that's not an adequate explanation. Transaction abort does clean up created files. The only thing I can

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1.3 and unused files

On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 16:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: % 1960 2006-05-02 17:03:19 EDTLOG: 0: server process (PID 10171) exited with exit code 1 Hm. I wonder if there are any uses of exit(1) in the Slony triggers. It doesn't appear so. It does have

Re: [HACKERS] 8.1.3 and unused files

On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 18:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 16:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Hm. I wonder if there are any uses of exit(1) in the Slony triggers. It doesn't appear so. It does have this though: Well, a SIGTERM would have

Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum logging, part deux.

I don't know about anyone else, but the only time I look at that mess is to find poor tuple/table or tuple/index ratios and other indications that vacuum isn't working as well as it should be. How about this instead: Log when the actual autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor (dead space cleaned up) was

Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum logging, part deux.

On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 11:25 -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote: Rod Taylor wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but the only time I look at that mess is to find poor tuple/table or tuple/index ratios and other indications that vacuum isn't working as well as it should be. How about

Re: [HACKERS] Is a SERIAL column a black box, or not?

On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 23:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do both. Return SERIAL to being a macro and implement the SQL IDENTITY construct as the black box version. Doesn't SQL IDENTITY have a number of properties that are significantly different from serial

Re: [HACKERS] Is a SERIAL column a black box, or not?

On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 17:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: In some recent activity on the patches list about responding to bug #2073, http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2005-11/msg00303.php we've been discussing various possible tweaks to the behavior of dropping or modifying a serial column.

[HACKERS] Left joins and inheritance (table partitioning)

I've recently been playing with table partitioning limitations. Turning over a large volume of data in inherited structures in a live environment, and have run into a couple of snags in the planner. The first is that LEFT JOIN will always do a sequential scan on all inherited tables. The second

Re: [HACKERS] Left joins and inheritance (table partitioning)

On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 23:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've recently been playing with table partitioning limitations. Turning over a large volume of data in inherited structures in a live environment, and have run into a couple of snags in the planner

Re: [HACKERS] Did this work in earlier version of Postgres?

On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 17:31 -0600, Tony Caduto wrote: I could have swore that this worked in earlier releases of Postgresql i.e. 7.4. CREATE TABLE public.test ( junk double NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT junk_pkey PRIMARY KEY (junk) )WITHOUT OIDS; Now it gives a error that type double does not

Re: [HACKERS] Did this work in earlier version of Postgres?

On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 16:05 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Rod Taylor wrote: On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 17:31 -0600, Tony Caduto wrote: I could have swore that this worked in earlier releases of Postgresql i.e. 7.4. CREATE TABLE public.test ( junk double NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT junk_pkey

Re: [HACKERS] Did this work in earlier version of Postgres?

On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 16:41 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Now it gives a error that type double does not exist. CREATE DOMAIN double AS float8; There, now the type exists ;) That's a little too perl for me ;) I suppose it depends on the goal. If it is an application that is to be

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Anniversary Proposals -- Important Update

On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 22:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com writes: -- There are only 13 days left to submit a proposal. Please do so. We'd rather not be forced into a last-minute rush to evaluate all of the stuff in April. Remember this is a family event so you

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >