Re: [HACKERS] Profiling vs autovacuum

2007-11-04 Thread Gregory Stark
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However, accumulation of zillions of gmon.out files is definitely a downside of the approach; one that I've noticed myself. Comments? All I can add is that I've run into this problem myself too. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB

[HACKERS] bad key in cancel request

2007-11-04 Thread Neil Conway
I noticed that processCancelRequest() emits a log message at DEBUG2 when it receives a cancel request with a bad key or for a non-existent PID. For example, ereport(DEBUG2, (errmsg_internal(bad key in cancel request for process %d, backendPID))); I think this ought

Re: [HACKERS] Asynchronous commit documentation gap

2007-11-04 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 11:13 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: The documentation doesn't really tell how to disable synchronous commits for a single commit. I believe the correct command is SET LOCAL synchronous_commit TO OFF; just before the COMMIT statement. Yes, in fact anywhere within

Re: [HACKERS] xlogdump

2007-11-04 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 10:54 +, Gregory Stark wrote: Incidentally I would like to call xlog.c:RecordIsValid() which is currently a static function. Any objection to exporting it? It doesn't depend on any external xlog.c state. You'll have some fun with that because most of the stuff in

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Select ... AS OF Savepoint

2007-11-04 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 13:40 +0100, Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote: I think Simon Riggs is already working on that idea. This one is fairly easy to implement. I think these are some of the features only a time-stamp based database can implement. I think database standards were formed during

Re: [HACKERS] Segmentation fault using digest from pg_crypto

2007-11-04 Thread Bruce Momjian
Marko Kreen wrote: On 8/24/07, Manuel Sugawara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Manuel Sugawara [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marko Kreen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In 8.0 the pgcrypto functions were non-strict and checked for NULLs. In 8.1 they were made

Re: [HACKERS] should I worry?

2007-11-04 Thread ohp
Dear Tom, On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Lane wrote: Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 21:21:20 -0400 From: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED], pgsql-hackers list pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] should I worry? [EMAIL

Re: [HACKERS] should I worry?

2007-11-04 Thread Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've got two problems: Looking at the errors, ISTM foreign statement is the over way round : levt_tevt_cod is in ligne_evt NOT in type_evt No, that's just how we've worded FK violation errors for some time. The real question is how did FK violations get into your

Re: [HACKERS] should I worry?

2007-11-04 Thread Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've tried it and got those logs: BTW, is that a complete list of the NOTICEs you got? I'd expect to see exactly two ignoring messages for each converting message, and it's a bit worrisome that that's not what you seem to have. Another thing that's strange is that

Re: [HACKERS] type money causes unrestorable dump

2007-11-04 Thread D'Arcy J.M. Cain
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:47:40 -0400 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg's objection caused me to rethink that. Doing it would be a problem when transporting dump files across platforms: what if the appropriate locale name is spelled differently on the new machine? We should probably leave

Re: [HACKERS] Test lab

2007-11-04 Thread Greg Smith
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: there is the various dbt workloads,sysbench, jans tpc-w implementation, hell even pgbench The DBT workloads are good for simulating disk-bound operations, but I don't think they're sufficient by themselves for detecting performance regressions

Re: [HACKERS] bad key in cancel request

2007-11-04 Thread Tom Lane
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ereport(DEBUG2, (errmsg_internal(bad key in cancel request for process %d, backendPID))); I think this ought to be logged at a higher level than DEBUG2: for one thing, it is a potential security issue the DBA might want to be

Re: [HACKERS] Intel x64 vs AMD x64 pgdata

2007-11-04 Thread Zdenek Kotala
Joshua D. Drake wrote: x86_64 is x86_64, regardless of intel or amd. Not exactly, ask kernel guys ;-). But for user space yes. Zdenek ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

Re: [HACKERS] Intel x64 vs AMD x64 pgdata

2007-11-04 Thread Joshua D. Drake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:28:46 +0100 Zdenek Kotala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joshua D. Drake wrote: x86_64 is x86_64, regardless of intel or amd. Not exactly, ask kernel guys ;-). But for user space yes. For the context of the discussion...

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] AutoVacuum Behaviour Question

2007-11-04 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, it isn't. Please add a TODO item about it: * Prevent long-lived temp tables from causing frozen-Xid advancement starvation Jeff Amiel wrote: Can somebody explain this one to me? because of our auditing technique, we have many LONG lived temp

Re: [HACKERS] Test lab

2007-11-04 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 17:25 -0700, Mark Wong wrote: On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:20:27 -0400 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My question is -hackers, is who wants first bite and what do they want :) Something I'd like to have back real soon

Re: [HACKERS] Test lab

2007-11-04 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 10:42 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: The test lab is finally starting to come to fruition. We (the community) have been donated hardware via MyYearbook and Hi5. It is my understanding that we may also have some coming from HP. We are currently setting up a Trac for

Re: [HACKERS] Test lab

2007-11-04 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Greg Smith wrote: On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: there is the various dbt workloads,sysbench, jans tpc-w implementation, hell even pgbench The DBT workloads are good for simulating disk-bound operations, but I don't think they're sufficient by themselves for detecting

Re: [HACKERS] should I worry?

2007-11-04 Thread Tom Lane
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Tom Lane wrote: Would it be possible for you to send me (off-list) all of the CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER commands appearing in the dump? [done] Hmm, this is messier than I thought. What evidently has happened is that at one time or another, one of the two tables involved

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Text - C string

2007-11-04 Thread Bruce Momjian
This has been saved for the 8.4 release: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold --- Brendan Jurd wrote: As discussed on -hackers, I'm trying to get rid of some redundant code by creating a widely

Re: [HACKERS] type money causes unrestorable dump

2007-11-04 Thread Bruce Momjian
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: + para +Since the output of this data type is locale-sensitive, it may not +work to load typemoney/ data into a database that has a different +setting of varnamelc_monetary/. To avoid problems, before +restoring a dump make sure varnamelc_monetary/

Re: [HACKERS] bad key in cancel request

2007-11-04 Thread Neil Conway
On Sun, 2007-11-04 at 11:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: No, if it's intended for the log it should be LOG. Your other proposals are actually *less* likely to get to where the DBA could see them. Good point. I suggested WARNING because that suggests that something is awry, whereas LOG is used for

Re: [HACKERS] type money causes unrestorable dump

2007-11-04 Thread D'Arcy J.M. Cain
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 17:24:10 -0500 (EST) Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: + para +Since the output of this data type is locale-sensitive, it may not +work to load typemoney/ data into a database that has a different +setting of

Re: [HACKERS] should I worry?

2007-11-04 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: Hmm, this is messier than I thought. What evidently has happened is that at one time or another, one of the two tables involved in an FK relationship has been dropped and re-created. If you'd had proper FK constraints the constraints would have gone away cleanly, but with these old

Re: [HACKERS] type money causes unrestorable dump

2007-11-04 Thread Tom Lane
D'Arcy J.M. Cain [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hmm. I think I like Tom's version better. However, since my primary goal here is to remove the deprecation I will let you guys duke it out over the additional clause. :-) Just pick the wording you like and commit it; we've spent more than enough

Re: [HACKERS] should I worry?

2007-11-04 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: Hmm, this is messier than I thought. What evidently has happened is that at one time or another, one of the two tables involved in an FK relationship has been dropped and re-created. If you'd had proper FK constraints the constraints would have gone away cleanly, but with these old

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: real procedures again (8.4)

2007-11-04 Thread Bruce Momjian
This has been saved for the 8.4 release: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold --- Pavel Stehule wrote: Hello, I found lot of discus about this topic.

Re: [HACKERS] type money causes unrestorable dump

2007-11-04 Thread D'Arcy J.M. Cain
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:38:11 -0500 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: D'Arcy J.M. Cain [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hmm. I think I like Tom's version better. However, since my primary goal here is to remove the deprecation I will let you guys duke it out over the additional clause. :-)

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Select ... AS OF Savepoint

2007-11-04 Thread Gokulakannan Somasundaram
On 11/4/07, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 13:40 +0100, Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote: I think Simon Riggs is already working on that idea. This one is fairly easy to implement. I think these are some of the features only a time-stamp based database can

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Select ... AS OF Savepoint

2007-11-04 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 11:58 +0530, Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: The idea was to write a syncpoint every N seconds where we record the time and a snapshot of what's in progress. What exactly is getting recorded here? Will the Syncpoint be similar to the Undo Log