Bruce Momjian wrote:
Log Message:
---
Reduce WAL activity for page splits:
Currently, an index split writes all the data on the split page to
WAL. That's a lot of WAL traffic. The tuples that are copied to the
right page need to be WAL logged, but the tuples that stay on the
original
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Log Message:
---
Reduce WAL activity for page splits:
Currently, an index split writes all the data on the split page to
WAL. That's a lot of WAL traffic. The tuples that are copied to the
right page need to be WAL logged, but the
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 02:16:05PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Feb 6, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
... massive expansion of the tests doesn't seem justified
What about the idea that's been floated in the past about a --
extensive mode for
Yes, yes, and yes ... but aside from the problem that you use the very
ambiguous word timestamp (which somehow suggests using a clock of
some sort), isn't the begin timestamp of a long running transaction
imho a begin timestamp is near useless
worse than the commit timestamp, when all
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Log Message:
---
Reduce WAL activity for page splits:
Currently, an index split writes all the data on the split page to
WAL. That's a lot of WAL traffic. The tuples that are copied to the
right page need to be WAL logged, but the
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Log Message:
---
Reduce WAL activity for page splits:
Currently, an index split writes all the data on the split page to
WAL. That's a lot of WAL traffic. The tuples that are copied to the
right page need to
Hi,
since str(n?)cat got replaced with strlcat, I fail to build PostgreSQL
(current CVS HEAD). HAVING_DECL_STRLCAT is not set, so AFAIK, the
strlcat() function from src/port should be used. However, I've read the
README there, but still don't quite know what's wrong.
The linker throws:
gcc
Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
Hi,
since str(n?)cat got replaced with strlcat, I fail to build PostgreSQL
(current CVS HEAD). HAVING_DECL_STRLCAT is not set, so AFAIK, the
strlcat() function from src/port should be used. However, I've read the
README there, but still don't quite know what's
Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
since str(n?)cat got replaced with strlcat, I fail to build
Since the buildfarm thinks it's OK, I'd first of all check whether you
have a complete and consistent checkout. Note that the default cvs
options will probably not get you one.
--
Peter Eisentraut
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Log Message:
---
Reduce WAL activity for page splits:
Currently, an index split writes all the data on the split page to
WAL. That's a lot of WAL traffic. The tuples that are copied to the
right page need
Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The basic idea is that when a tuple is UPDATEd we can, in certain
circumstances, avoid inserting index tuples for a tuple. Such tuples are
marked HEAP_ONLY_TUPLE, but their storage is otherwise identical to
other tuples.
What is VACUUM
Gavin Sherry wrote:
I will update the code tomorrow. The focus will be cleaning up the
executor modifications. Please look else where for now.
I'm getting a segfault with this test script:
CREATE TABLE bmtest (i int);
INSERT INTO bmtest SELECT 1 FROM generate_series(1,10) a;
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Log Message:
---
Reduce WAL activity for page splits:
Currently, an index split writes all the data on the split page to
WAL. That's a lot of WAL traffic. The tuples that are copied to
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Gavin Sherry wrote:
I will update the code tomorrow. The focus will be cleaning up the
executor modifications. Please look else where for now.
I'm getting a segfault with this test script:
CREATE TABLE bmtest (i int);
INSERT INTO
Oops, forgot to include pgsql-hackers when I responded to this the first
time.
On Tue, 2007-06-02 at 20:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Marc Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The RI triggers currently fire when a record is updated. Under my
proposal they would fire in the same way but before the
I am going to restate my earlier proposal, to clarify it and in the hope
of stimulating more discussion.
One of the causes of deadlocks in Postgres is that its referential
integrity triggers can take locks in inconsistent orders. Generally a
child record will be locked before its parent, but not
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 17:47, Marc Munro wrote:
[snip] One of the causes of deadlocks in Postgres is that its referential
integrity triggers can take locks in inconsistent orders. Generally a
child record will be locked before its parent, but not in all cases.
[snip]
The problem is that
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 18:06 +0100, Csaba Nagy wrote:
The problem is that eliminating the deadlock is still not the complete
cake... the interlocking still remains, possibly leading to degraded
performance on high contention on very common parent rows. The real
solution would be when an update
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
What is the practical purpose of the notices emitted by DROP
SOMETHING IF EXISTS when the object in fact does not exist?
It was asked for ...
The argument was that MySQL does the same. Which is valid but not
overriding.
I'm honestly looking
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
The downside is that while I wanted to use the IF EXISTS form to reduce
the chatter at the beginning of schema loading scripts, this just gives
me a different spelling of that same chatter.
There is possibly a good case for dropping the message level.
cheers
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Marc Munro wrote:
Oops, forgot to include pgsql-hackers when I responded to this the first
time.
On Tue, 2007-06-02 at 20:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Marc Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The RI triggers currently fire when a record is updated. Under my
proposal
On Jan 19 2006, 9:36 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Rosenman) wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Larry Rosenman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've got a fastFreeBSD/amd64 server available to run Buildfarm
on.
However, I see we already have a couple of others running it.
My questions are:
I'm trying to build PostgreSQL 8.2.2 outside the ports system on a
FreeBSD 6.2 amd64 box. The databases/postgresql81-server port builds
8.1.7 just fine on the same box. My configure fails. I'm new to
FreeBSD so I expect I'm missing something pretty obvious. config.log
follows. Line 2212 is very
I can set up build farm on it if yall need it. Its running 6.2/amd64
--- Original Message ---
From: Andrew Hammond [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Larry Rosenman ler@lerctr.org
Sent: 2/8/07, 12:19:07 PM
Subject: Re: BuildFarm: Do we need another FreeBSD/amd64 member?
On Jan 19 2006, 9:36 pm,
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 10:06 -0800, Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Marc Munro wrote:
. . .
That other transaction, T1, would have run the same RI triggers and so
would have the same parent records locked.
That's not true in the case of delete, since the referencing table
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm honestly looking for some practical use of this. We have debated
other NOTICE messages over the years, but they at least tell you
something you can use after the command.
The objection I had to the original patch (which didn't return a notice)
--enable-thread-saftey is surely misspelled.
not sure about the rest.
cheers
andrew
Andrew Hammond wrote:
I'm trying to build PostgreSQL 8.2.2 outside the ports system on a
FreeBSD 6.2 amd64 box. The databases/postgresql81-server port builds
8.1.7 just fine on the same box. My configure
On 2/7/2007 11:12 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
On 2/7/2007 10:35 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I find the term logical proof of it's correctness too restrictive. It
sounds like some formal academic process that really doesn't work well
for us.
Thank you.
Also, I saw the trigger
Andrew Hammond wrote:
This file contains any messages produced by compilers while
running configure, to aid debugging if configure makes a mistake.
It was created by PostgreSQL configure 8.2.2, which was
generated by GNU Autoconf 2.59. Invocation command line was
$ ./configure
Andrew Hammond [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm trying to build PostgreSQL 8.2.2 outside the ports system on a
FreeBSD 6.2 amd64 box.
Note you *definitely* want 8.2.3 not 8.2.2.
configure:2209: checking for C compiler default output file name
configure:2212: gcc -O3 -funroll-loops -m64
Tom Lane wrote:
I thought it might be coming from your --with-libs switch somehow,
but when I add that to my configure command it does not change this
output at all. Is it possible you've got environment variables
(like CFLAGS) that configure might be picking up?
A stout I'll bet it's $LIBS
Marc Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes in this case, T1 must abort because the record it was going to
update has disappeared from underneath it. I don't see how this is
significantly different from the same race for the record if the table
had no RI constraints. The only difference that I
On Feb 8, 11:28 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alvaro Herrera) wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
I thought it might be coming from your --with-libs switch somehow,
but when I add that to my configure command it does not change this
output at all. Is it possible you've got environment variables
(like
Jan Wieck wrote:
On 2/7/2007 11:12 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
On 2/7/2007 10:35 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I find the term logical proof of it's correctness too restrictive. It
sounds like some formal academic process that really doesn't work well
for us.
Thank
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 14:33 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Marc Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes in this case, T1 must abort because the record it was going to
update has disappeared from underneath it. I don't see how this is
significantly different from the same race for the record if the
[ time to move this thread to -hackers ]
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, I don't care much for the terminology phantom cid ... there's
nothing particularly phantom about them,
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
On 2/7/2007 11:12 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
On 2/7/2007 10:35 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Also, I saw the trigger patch with no explaination of why it was
important or who would use it --- that also isn't going to fly well.
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Marc Munro wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 10:06 -0800, Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Marc Munro wrote:
. . .
That other transaction, T1, would have run the same RI triggers and so
would have the same parent records locked.
That's not true in the case
Tom Lane wrote:
[ time to move this thread to -hackers ]
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, I don't care much for the terminology phantom cid ... there's
nothing
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 12:24 -0800, Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Marc Munro wrote:
I don't think this does stop the second from continuing before the
first. What will stop it, is the eventual lock that is taken on the
child (triggering) record.
But at that point, you've
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Is this a new policy that after discussion, all patches must be
resubmitted with a summary and conclusions of the discussion? I can
certainly do that for you, but just tell me if you are going to ask the
same from everyone.
No, I am asking only this time
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Packed doesn't seem to have quite the right connotation either --- it
sounds like it means there are two separable fields in the CID value.
Maybe composite cid?
At one point I was thinking combo. but composite sounds good.
I like
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Another issue that we need to think about before we go too far with this
is the problem that we punted on before 8.2 release: how to deal with
rolling back an upgrade of a row-level lock from shared to exclusive
within a subtransaction. I'm a bit
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
This starts to look awfully similar to MultiXactIds. And probably using
such a mechanism would allow you to rollback any number of row locks:
take the current membersoof the multicid, substract the one that
rolled back and use that as new multicid. The main difference
Tom Lane wrote:
At one point I was thinking combo. but composite sounds good.
I like combo --- nice and short.
Another issue that we need to think about before we go too far with this
is the problem that we punted on before 8.2 release: how to deal with
rolling back an upgrade of a
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Humm, sorry, obviously this makes no sense at all because I mentally
mixed the Xid locker and the Cids.
After thinking a bit, I have a sketch of a solution.
Assume that we extend the MultiXact infrastructure so that it can track
whether each member of a
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The way combo cid is supposed to work is that you are deleting a row
created in your same transaction by a previous command id, so you look
in the combo cid array to see if a match for that pair exists --- if
not, you create a new entry and put the two
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The way combo cid is supposed to work is that you are deleting a row
created in your same transaction by a previous command id, so you look
in the combo cid array to see if a match for that pair exists --- if
not, you create a new
Can someone add this to the TODO?
patch
Description: Binary data
--
Jim Nasby[EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You
IF I run the following with the a 2900 condition first, the more
expensive EXISTS only gets executed when needed, but if I change the
order of the OR's, the EXISTS is always executed. It would be good if
the optimizer could re-order the OR conditions based on estimated
cost (granted, this
Here is the more recent email I have on this feature work.
---
Bernd Helmle wrote:
--On Freitag, September 01, 2006 11:41:16 -0400 Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So in other words, views on serial columns don't
Where are we on this feature?
---
Bernd Helmle wrote:
--On Mittwoch, August 30, 2006 12:01:25 -0400 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Bernd Helmle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[ latest views patch ]
This is the
OK, where are we on this patch?
---
Pavel Stehule wrote:
Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This patch doesn't seem to cope with cases where the supplied tuple has
the wrong number of columns, and it
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 14:17 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The basic idea is that when a tuple is UPDATEd we can, in certain
circumstances, avoid inserting index tuples for a tuple. Such tuples are
marked HEAP_ONLY_TUPLE, but their storage is otherwise
On 2/8/2007 3:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Is this a new policy that after discussion, all patches must be
resubmitted with a summary and conclusions of the discussion? I can
certainly do that for you, but just tell me if you are going to ask the
same from
Jan Wieck wrote:
On 2/8/2007 3:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Is this a new policy that after discussion, all patches must be
resubmitted with a summary and conclusions of the discussion? I can
certainly do that for you, but just tell me if you are going to ask
Who is working on this item?
---
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 05:15:57PM +0100, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
3) Add planner support so that WITH clauses are mapped to a
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That is part of the original open() code that Claudio did back for 8.0,
so it has definitly been working since then.
Hm, maybe best not to touch it, but still...
I haven't really read into
the code, though... But a qiuck look
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 15:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Packed doesn't seem to have quite the right connotation either --- it
sounds like it means there are two separable fields in the CID value.
Maybe composite cid?
At one point
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 15:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Packed doesn't seem to have quite the right connotation either --- it
sounds like it means there are two separable fields in the CID value.
Maybe
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 00:08 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 15:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Packed doesn't seem to have quite the right connotation either --- it
sounds like it means there
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Combo is OK, because it's a *combination* of two CommandIds.
That means they are ComboCommandIds or CCIs.
CCI is CommandCounterIncrement to me, so let's not use that
abbreviation.
Agreed. I looked for a bit at adding a separate
Jan Wieck wrote:
On 2/8/2007 3:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Is this a new policy that after discussion, all patches must be
resubmitted with a summary and conclusions of the discussion? I can
certainly do that for you, but just tell me if you are going to
ask the
I just want an outline of what each option is supposed to control. If
that information is in a documentation patch, then fine, he can just
post that and tell people to read the patch documentation.
---
Joshua D. Drake
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 22:15 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm testing the patch currently. I was a bit surprised to find the
without_oid test failing, but it makes sense because I'm using a
MAXALIGN=8 machine. I suppose Heikki tested on MAXALIGN=4.
That's definitely strange. The patch has been
Uh, I thought the approach was to create type-specific in/out functions,
and add casting so every time there were referenced, they would expand
to a varlena structure in memory.
---
Gregory Stark wrote:
I've been looking
Sorry for the late responce;
Gzip can reduce the archive log size about one fourth. My point is
that it can still be large enough.Removing physical log record (by
replacing them with logical log record) from archive log will achieve
will shrink the size of the archive log to one
From: Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hnetcfg.dll is a part of Windows. Home Networking Configuration
Manager. LPK.DLL is also a part of Windows - it's the language
pack.
Thank you for information.
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 09:50:26PM +0900, Takayuki Tsunakawa wrote:
When I try to start
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Well how deep are we talking here? My understanding of what Jan wants to
do is simple.
Be able to declare which triggers are fired depending on the state of
the cluster.
In Jan's terms, the Origin or Subscriber. In Replicator terms the Master
or
Full_page_compress is not intended to use with PITR slave, but for the
case to keep both online backup and archive log for archive recovery,
which is very popular PostgreSQL operation now.
I've just posted my evaluation for the patch as a reply for another
thread of the same proposal (sorry, I
70 matches
Mail list logo
