On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Also, I have heard a lot of people reocommending RAID 0+1 or 1+0 as a
> good mix of reliability and performance.
Right. Striping across mirrored drives will definitely be better, but
you can't do that with only three drives.
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <[EMA
On Friday 31 Jan 2003 9:56 am, you wrote:
> Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But this only wins if a child process inheriting an open file also
> inherits copies of any locks held by the parent. If not, then the
> issue is moot. Anybody have any idea if file locks work that way?
> Is it
Also, I have heard a lot of people reocommending RAID 0+1 or 1+0 as a
good mix of reliability and performance.
---
Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, David Kennedy wrote:
>
> > This weekend I will be building a coup
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Dave Cramer writes:
>
> > The method in question is
> > ResultSetMetaDate.getTableName(int column)
> > and while were at it
> > ResultSetMetaData.getSchemaName(int column)
> > and FWIW, the return value if not applicable is ""
>
> Not applicable sounds fine to me. It's
> What about it? Someone claimed in this thread that MySQL's Windows port
> requires Cygwin. Is that true or not?
It's been a while, but I know I've installed MySQL on windows without any
separate step of installing Cygwin (I can't say 100% for sure that it didn't
install some part of Cygwin t
> This could be cleaned up rather dramatically if we were to use one of
> the file locking primitives supplied by the OS to grab an exclusive
> lock on the file, ...
> ...
> The first question for the group is: is it worth doing that?
In the past it has been proposed and declined -- there is some
Kevin Brown wrote:
>
> Greg Copeland wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 13:56, Dave Page wrote:
> > > When properly configured, Windows can be reliable, maybe not as much as
> > > Solaris or HPUX but certainly some releases of Linux (which I use as
> > > well). You don't see Oracle or IBM avoiding W
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Assuming all your assumptions are right, why the hell is Oracle's and MS
> SQL-Server's reputation that bloody good?
They have marketing departments.
> And what about MySQL?
What about it? Someone claimed in this thread that MySQL's Windows port
requires
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > I agree with Tom on yanking the plug while it's operating. Do you
> > know the difference between kill -9 and yanking the plug?
>
> Kill -9 seems to me _less_ severe than yanking the plug but much easier
> to automate, so that could be the first thing to test. You have no
Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This could be cleaned up rather dramatically if we were to use one of
> the file locking primitives supplied by the OS to grab an exclusive
> lock on the file, and the upside is that, when the locking code is
> used, the postmaster would *know* whether or n
> file descriptor (closing the file means losing the lock), and we'd
> still have to retain the old code anyway in the event that there is no
> suitable file locking mechanism to use on the platform in question.
What is the gain given the above statement? If what we currently do can
cause issues
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And, by the way, who in their right mind tests a database server by repeated
> > yanking of the AC power?
>
> Anybody who would like their data to survive a power outage.
... has UPS, ECC Ram on quality boards and storage subsystems
Mmy problem is freebsd getting totally loaded at which point it sends kills
to various processes. This sometime seems to end up with several actual
postmasters running, and none of them working.
Better existing process detection would help that greatly I'm sure.
Chris
> -Original Message---
I've been looking at the PID file creation mechanism we currently use.
It goes through a loop in an attempt to create the PID file, and if
one is there it attempts to remove it if the PID it contains no longer
exists (there are checks for shared memory usage as well).
This could be cleaned up rath
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Ron Mayer wrote:
> > >
> > > Cool irony in the automated .sig on the mailinglist software...
> > > [...]
> > > Sounds like you're basically saying is
> > >_do_ 'kill -9' the postmaster...
> > > and make sure it recovers gracefully.
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> Does the shared memory stuff use disk at all? Perhaps that's the
> difference between PostgreSQL and other applications.
Shared memory in NetBSD is just an interface to mmap'd pages, so it can
be swapped to disk. But I assume your swap is not on NFS.
Tom Lane wrote:
> Most variants of Unix are known to be pretty stable. Most variants of
> Unix are known to follow the Unix standard semantics for sync() and
> fsync(). I think we are entirely justified in doubting whether Windows
> is a suitable platform for PG, and in wanting to run tests to fi
Tom Lane wrote:
> Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I think it's best to leave well enough alone. The tarball ships with
> >> working bison output files anyway, so all of this really only matters
> >> to people trying to build 7.2.* from a CVS pull.
>
> > Okay, fair enough, but if we i
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't know anything
> about v6, but I'd imagine v4 addresses form a defined subset of the v6
> address space ...
No, they do not. The address spaces are completely independent. (There
is a "compatability space" for IPv4 addresses, but it turned out to be
i
Katie Ward wrote:
>
> The latest build is still: ftp://209.61.187.152/postgres/postgres_beta4.zip
>
> This is not exactly what Jan submitted, and the catalog number is slightly
> different, but it should do for testing.
That binary at least demonstrates, what could be built based on the code
sub
Dave Page wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 29 January 2003 16:57
> > To: Dave Page
> > Cc: Vince Vielhaber; Katie Ward; Curtis Faith;
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
> >
> >
> > "Dave Pa
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 19:57, Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> > Given that IPv6 is supposed to allow co-operation with IPv4, it seems
> > it'd be pretty hard to force such a view on every application using
> > IP addresses. DNS, for instance.
>
> Hm? DNS comp
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Given that IPv6 is supposed to allow co-operation with IPv4, it seems
> it'd be pretty hard to force such a view on every application using
> IP addresses. DNS, for instance.
Hm? DNS completely separates IPv4 and IPv6 addresses; they're different
rec
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
>
> > > hammering the betas is a far cry from an "industrial-strength
> > > solution".
> >
> > Have you a better suggestion? Seems a bit catch 22 if testing won't
> > prove it's good and we can't use it until we know it's good... St
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 11:28:41AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Also, what are the implications to functions such as network_sub,
> > network_cmp, etc. when given mixed v4/v6 inputs as could easily happen if the
> > two are freely mixed in the same data type?
>
> We have to work out what the sem
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 30 January 2003 19:20
> > To: Lamar Owen
> > Cc: Tom Lane; Dave Page; Ron Mayer; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
> >
Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think it's best to leave well enough alone. The tarball ships with
>> working bison output files anyway, so all of this really only matters
>> to people trying to build 7.2.* from a CVS pull.
> Okay, fair enough, but if we intend to continue to maintai
On Thursday 30 January 2003 18:39, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, great; you're probably proof against misfeasance of your local
> power company. But how about someone tripping over the power cord?
Twistlok.
> Or a blowout in the server's internal power supply?
Redundant supplies.
> Or a kernel cras
Dave, Lamar and Katie can cheer now 'cuze this is the last comment
I'm going to make on this. All others will be ignored, probably.
The one thing I haven't seen from Dave, Lamar or Katie on this is
reputation. You're all for the PostgreSQL name going on it but I
have yet to see any of you so su
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 30 January 2003 16:54, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> And, by the way, who in their right mind tests a database server by
>>> repeated yanking of the AC power?
>> Anybody who would like their data to survive a powe
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 17:09, Tom Lane wrote:
> The diffs seem to have more to do with error handling --- see attached.
>
> None of the plpython files have changed since November, btw, so I would
> imagine you'll see the same behavior in 7.3 or 7.3.1; but I haven't
> rebuilt that branch to confirm
On Thursday 30 January 2003 13:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> anyone took anything I said as a personal attack. It wasn't meant that
> way.
With a tag? Flames are by long tradition personal. But I
understand that that wasn't the intent -- the was more of a
tag.
> Sure, we're on record as not likin
On Thursday 30 January 2003 16:01, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> Dave, Lamar and Katie can cheer now 'cuze this is the last comment
> I'm going to make on this. All others will be ignored, probably.
> up. Yet all three of you are advocating that the PostgreSQL stamp
> of approval should be immediatel
On Thursday 30 January 2003 15:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > While I understand (and agree with) your (and Vince's) reasoning on why
> > Windows should be considered less reliable, neither of you have provided
> Windows shares none of that heritage. It is the fi
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 02:39:59PM -0800, Kevin Brown wrote:
> >
> > With this I agree, but before you start thinking that Windows is the
> > only OS that qualifies, consider this: I've run the "pull the plug"
> > test under early Linux 2.4 kernels running with ReiserFS. I'd
Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 16:39, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In CVS tip, if you run "make installcheck" in src/pl/plpython, the test
>> fails with a number of diffs between the expected and actual output.
> Could this have anything to do with the changes I made to th
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 02:39:59PM -0800, Kevin Brown wrote:
>
> With this I agree, but before you start thinking that Windows is the
> only OS that qualifies, consider this: I've run the "pull the plug"
> test under early Linux 2.4 kernels running with ReiserFS. I'd start a
> make of a large pro
Greg Copeland wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 13:56, Dave Page wrote:
> > When properly configured, Windows can be reliable, maybe not as much as
> > Solaris or HPUX but certainly some releases of Linux (which I use as
> > well). You don't see Oracle or IBM avoiding Windows 'cos it isn't stable
> >
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 16:39, Tom Lane wrote:
> In CVS tip, if you run "make installcheck" in src/pl/plpython, the test
> fails with a number of diffs between the expected and actual output.
> I'm not sure if plpython is broken, or if it's just that someone changed
> the behavior and didn't bother t
From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Most variants of Unix are known to be pretty stable. Most variants of
> Unix are known to follow the Unix standard semantics for sync() and
> fsync(). I think we are entirely justified in doubting whether Windows
> is a suitable platform for PG, and in wa
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 14:27, Dave Page wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 30 January 2003 15:56
> > To: Hannu Krosing
> > Cc: Vince Vielhaber; Dave Page; Ron Mayer;
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build
Tom Lane wrote:
> Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm attaching a patch for 7.2.4's parser/gram.y that fixes all of
> > bison 1.75's complaints.
>
> But parser/gram.y is not the only .y file in the distribution. To call
> ourselves 1.75-safe, we'd have to go through this same exercise
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 12:30 PM
> To: Lamar Owen
> Cc: Dave Page; Vince Vielhaber; Ron Mayer;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
>
>
> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
--On Thursday, January 30, 2003 16:02:17 -0500 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
That was going to be my question too.
I thought NFS didn't have some of the requisite file system behaviors
(locking, flushing, etc. IIRC) for PostgreSQL to function cor
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I would also point out that we already list the Cygwin port of
> > PostgreSQL as supported. Who ever gave that the kind of testing people
> > are demanding now? I think the worst case scenario will be that our
> > Win32 port is far bette
In CVS tip, if you run "make installcheck" in src/pl/plpython, the test
fails with a number of diffs between the expected and actual output.
I'm not sure if plpython is broken, or if it's just that someone changed
the behavior and didn't bother to update the test's expected files (the
test files do
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 13:56, Dave Page wrote:
> When properly configured, Windows can be reliable, maybe not as much as
> Solaris or HPUX but certainly some releases of Linux (which I use as
> well). You don't see Oracle or IBM avoiding Windows 'cos it isn't stable
> enough.
I'm not jumping on one
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While I understand (and agree with) your (and Vince's) reasoning on why
> Windows should be considered less reliable, neither of you have provided a
> sound technical basis for why we should not hold the other ports to the same
> standards.
The point her
Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That was going to be my question too.
> I thought NFS didn't have some of the requisite file system behaviors
> (locking, flushing, etc. IIRC) for PostgreSQL to function correctly or
> reliably.
Whether the thing is trustworthy is a different issue ;-).
"Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've never (to my knowledge) lost any data following a powerfail or
> system crash on a system using NTFS ...
> Obviously this goes out of the window is the user chooses to run on
> FAT/FAT32 partitions. I think that it should be made *very* clear in any
>
Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Without documented testing and sufficient warnings until enough
> history is banked, I don't think a native windows port should be
> given any kind of seal of approval.
That was my last point also: we have years of track record on most of
our Unix port
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And, by the way, who in their right mind tests a database server by repeated
> yanking of the AC power?
Anybody who would like their data to survive a power outage.
> To go to that extreme for Win32 when we caution
> against something as mundane as a ki
On Thursday 30 January 2003 16:54, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And, by the way, who in their right mind tests a database server by
> > repeated yanking of the AC power?
> Anybody who would like their data to survive a power outage.
I don't buy that. That's why I
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 30 January 2003 15:56
> To: Hannu Krosing
> Cc: Vince Vielhaber; Dave Page; Ron Mayer;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
>
>
> In the pull-the-plug case you have to wor
> -Original Message-
> From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 30 January 2003 19:20
> To: Lamar Owen
> Cc: Tom Lane; Dave Page; Ron Mayer; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
>
>
> I've
> been on both sides know that the window
That was going to be my question too.
I thought NFS didn't have some of the requisite file system behaviors
(locking, flushing, etc. IIRC) for PostgreSQL to function correctly or
reliably.
Please correct as needed.
Regards,
Greg
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 13:02, mlw wrote:
> Forgive my stu
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Thursday 30 January 2003 13:17, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > Vince, I would say that we, the developers of PostgreSQL, are then not
> > > qualified to test our own releases for the reasons you mentioned that
> >
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:48:37AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't see the argument for that. (It'd have to be an argument that
> doesn't just establish a scenario where you'd want that, but proves
> that we should force that point of view upon every application using
> IP addresses.)
Given tha
Forgive my stupidity, are you running PostgreSQL with the data on an NFS
share?
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
I have posted before about this but I am now posting to both NetBSD and
PostgreSQL since it seems to be some sort of interaction between the two. I
have a NetAPP filer on which I am puttin
On Thursday 30 January 2003 13:17, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > Vince, I would say that we, the developers of PostgreSQL, are then not
> > qualified to test our own releases for the reasons you mentioned that
> > Katie should not test her own releases.
> Don'
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And poor Katie just got _slammed_ -- and she's the lead developer.
We could definitely do without the vitriol. I'd like to apologize if
anyone took anything I said as a personal attack. It wasn't meant that
way.
> The developers don't like Win32. That's
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Lamar Owen wrote:
> Vince, I would say that we, the developers of PostgreSQL, are then not
> qualified to test our own releases for the reasons you mentioned that Katie
> should not test her own releases. Of course that's ridiculous -- often the
> developers can do a better
Hi,
On Thursday 30 January 2003 17:12, you wrote:
> "Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I would also point out that we already list the Cygwin port of
> > PostgreSQL as supported. Who ever gave that the kind of testing people
> > are demanding now? I think the worst case scenario will be t
On Thursday 30 January 2003 11:12, Tom Lane wrote:
> A good point --- but what this is really about is expectations. If we
> support a native Windows port then people will probably think that it's
> okay to run production databases on that setup; whereas I doubt many
> people would think that abou
7.2.x isn't bison 1.75 compatible ... and most likely never will be ...
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > I jsut bundled up v7.2.4 with all the recent security fixes ... can a
> > few ppl do some regression tests and report back before I announce in the
> > morning? I did a configu
Hi everyone,
This is a call for PostgreSQL Case Study participants.
We're looking for volunteers running PostgreSQL in their companies, or
who have good contact with companies running PostgreSQL, to please
assist us in creating a large number of good quality, reference
PostgreSQL Case Studies.
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have posted before about this but I am now posting to both NetBSD and
> PostgreSQL since it seems to be some sort of interaction between the two. I
> have a NetAPP filer on which I am putting a PostgreSQL database. I run
> PostgreSQL on a NetB
Steve Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What about cases where I only want one or the other? Would a simple method
> exist to limit input to v4 or v6 only?
I would assume we'd add a test function like is_v6(inet). Given that,
you could add a check constraint "is_v6(col)" or "NOT is_v6(col)"
What about cases where I only want one or the other? Would a simple method
exist to limit input to v4 or v6 only?
Also, what are the implications to functions such as network_sub,
network_cmp, etc. when given mixed v4/v6 inputs as could easily happen if the
two are freely mixed in the same data
"Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would also point out that we already list the Cygwin port of
> PostgreSQL as supported. Who ever gave that the kind of testing people
> are demanding now? I think the worst case scenario will be that our
> Win32 port is far better than the existing 'suppo
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kill -9 seems to me _less_ severe than yanking the plug but much easier
> to automate, so that could be the first thing to test. You have no hope
> of passing the pull-the-plug test if you can't survive even kill -9.
Actually, they're two orthogonal issu
I have posted before about this but I am now posting to both NetBSD and
PostgreSQL since it seems to be some sort of interaction between the two. I
have a NetAPP filer on which I am putting a PostgreSQL database. I run
PostgreSQL on a NetBSD box. I used rsync to get the database onto the file
Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm attaching a patch for 7.2.4's parser/gram.y that fixes all of
> bison 1.75's complaints.
But parser/gram.y is not the only .y file in the distribution. To call
ourselves 1.75-safe, we'd have to go through this same exercise for
all of 'em:
$ find REL
[ pgsql-advocacy trimmed from cc list; seems off-topic for them ]
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 30 January 2003 07:42, Gavin Sherry wrote:
>> Different storage for ipv4 vs. ipv6 (why punish ipv4 users with an extra
>> 96 bits of storage?). Use of ipv4 and ipv6 should
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 13:24, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Ron Mayer wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Cool irony in the automated .sig on the mailinglist software...
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > > > > ...
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Ron Mayer wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Cool irony in the automated .sig on the mailinglist software...
> > >
> > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > hammering the betas is a far cry from an "industrial-strength
> -Original Message-
> From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 30 January 2003 09:17
> To: Ron Mayer
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
>
>
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Ron Mayer wrote:
>
> >
> > Cool irony in the automated .sig
> > bash-2.05b$ bison --version
> > bison (GNU Bison) 1.75
> ISTM that the eve of what'll probably be our last dot-release for 7.2
> is not the time to drop a new bison into its toolchain.
Agreed -- but it's worth mentioning in the 7.2.4 release notes that an
earlier Bison version is required.
-
On Thursday 30 January 2003 07:42, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> Different storage for ipv4 vs. ipv6 (why punish ipv4 users with an extra
> 96 bits of storage?). Use of ipv4 and ipv6 should be mutually
> exclusive. Extra code in inet type causing bloat.
The inet code has been designed from day one to hand
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Maybe we should create a new type 'inet6'???
>
> I'd lean towards allowing the existing inet and cidr types to store both
> v4 and v6 addresses, if at all possible. Is there a good motivation for
> d
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Ron Mayer wrote:
>
> Cool irony in the automated .sig on the mailinglist software...
>
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > ...
> > hammering the betas is a far cry from an "industrial-strength solution".
> > ...
> > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
> Sound
81 matches
Mail list logo
