Bruce Momjian írta:
I have written a presentation about the major 8.4 features known so far:
http://momjian.us/main/writings/pgsql/features.pdf
Comments? Suggestions? Please email me offlist and I will update the
PDF.
The title Save termination of individual sessions should be
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Couldn't you get rid of PMSIGNAL_RECOVERY_COMPLETED altogether? If the
startup process exits with code 0, recovery is complete, else there
was trouble. I find this SetPostmasterSignal bit quite ugly anyway.
Right now, the startup process exits with
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 22:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I don't see a problems here, because indexes in postgres don't
depend on any
transaction's ids or modes as heap depends. WAL-logger works without
that
knowledge too. May be I missed something here or don't understand.
Although
Frank Featherlight wrote:
Hey guys,
I had two running threads here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2009-02/msg00859.php
http://www.postgresqlforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=41t=1574
Both have not come to a succesful conclusion.
In very short (but you better read the
pet...@postgresql.org (Peter Eisentraut) writes:
Log Message:
---
Add quotes to message
errdetail(Returned type %s does not match expected type
! %s in column \%s\.,
Gregory Stark wrote:
pet...@postgresql.org (Peter Eisentraut) writes:
Log Message:
---
Add quotes to message
errdetail(Returned type %s does not match expected type
! %s in column \%s\.,
tbh, I would add much more facts from internal changes, to improve
efficiency. Because that wouldn't be very convincing for , say my
managment (but than, what is..), etc.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
Bruce Momjian ?rta:
I have written a presentation about the major 8.4 features known so far:
http://momjian.us/main/writings/pgsql/features.pdf
Comments? Suggestions? Please email me offlist and I will update the
PDF.
The title Save
It would only be possible to have the actual PostgreSQL backends
running on a single node anyway, because they use shared memory to
This is not problem: Performance is a secondary consideration (at least
as far as the problem I was referring to).
The primary usefulness is to have the data be a
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Paul Sheer paulsh...@gmail.com wrote:
It would only be possible to have the actual PostgreSQL backends
running on a single node anyway, because they use shared memory to
This is not problem: Performance is a secondary consideration (at least
as far as the
Paul Sheer wrote
I have also found it's no use having RAID or ZFS. Each of these ties
the data to an OS installation. If the OS needs to be reinstalled, all
the data has to be manually moved in a way that is, well... dangerous.
How about network storage, fiber attach? If you move the db you
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:56 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
It would be helpful if Heikki or Simon could jump in here, but my
understanding is that cleaning up the pending list is a read-write
operation. I don't think we can do that on a hot standby server.
From reading the
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I'm starting to think that the right thing to do here is to create a
non-lossy option for TIDBitmap. Tom has been advocating just losing
the index scan AM altogether, but that risks losing performance in
cases where a LIMIT would have stopped the scan
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I'm starting to think that the right thing to do here is to create a
non-lossy option for TIDBitmap. Tom has been advocating just losing
the index scan AM altogether, but that risks
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Actually, I'm going to *insist* that we lose the index AM scan
altogether.
Except that the inessential feature in question is a feature that
currently WORKS, and I don't believe
I wrote:
I looked into the bug reported by Cott Lang that pg_type.typowner is
incorrect for a table's toast table after a rewriting ALTER TYPE
command.
...
The obvious fix involves adding an ownerid parameter to TypeCreate,
but I'm a tad worried about whether this will break any third-party
Hi,
Paul Sheer wrote:
This is not problem: Performance is a secondary consideration (at least
as far as the problem I was referring to).
Well, if you don't mind your database running .. ehm.. creeping several
orders of magnitudes slower, you might also be interested in
Single-System Image
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
There are a number of options at this point, including fixing the
problem only in HEAD, fixing back to 8.1 but no further, or making
wrapper functions in the back branches to preserve the existing
argument lists of
Here is my problem and also the question. I'd like adding a field in
Path structure and Plan structure as follows:
typedef struct Path{
bla bla bla
Cost energy_cost;
bla bla bla
}
typedef struct Plan{
bla bla bla
Cost energy_cost;
bla bla bla
}
Also, I have modified
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Zichen Xu xzckil...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is my problem and also the question. I'd like adding a field in
Path structure and Plan structure as follows:
typedef struct Path{
bla bla bla
Cost energy_cost;
bla bla bla
}
typedef struct Plan{
Zichen Xu xzckil...@gmail.com writes:
Also, I have modified the funscopy.c and every related place where the
other field total_cost appears.
Sounds like it should work. Did you recompile everything?
Right now, the compile is fine and
build is fine. However, everytime the server is running
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Attach to the backend with gdb. Then you can get a backtrace, esp. if
you've built with --enable-debug.
It may be helpful to use lsof to figure out which backend your psql
session is connected to.
select backend_pid();
is pretty handy for this.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Gregory Stark st...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Attach to the backend with gdb. Then you can get a backtrace, esp. if
you've built with --enable-debug.
It may be helpful to use lsof to figure out which backend your psql
Tom Lane wrote:
Right now, the compile is fine and
build is fine. However, everytime the server is running and I send a
query to the server, it crashed. as
Crashed where? If you're not reasonably handy with gdb or some other
favorite debugger, stop what you're doing and go learn one.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
In theory, I think you could make postgres work on any type of
underlying storage you like by writing a second smgr implementation
that would exist alongside md.c. The fly in the ointment is that
you'd need a more
Jonah H. Harris jonah.har...@gmail.com writes:
I believe there is more than that which would need to be done nowadays. I
seem to recall that the storage manager abstraction has slowly been
dedicated/optimized for md over the past 6 years or so.
As far as I can tell, the PG storage manager API
Guillaume Smet guillaume.s...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
There are a number of options at this point, including fixing the
problem only in HEAD, fixing back to 8.1 but no further, or making
wrapper functions in the back branches to
| I believe there is more than that which would need to be done
nowadays. I seem to recall that the storage manager|
| abstraction has slowly been dedicated/optimized for md over the past 6
years or so. It may even be easier/preferred
| to write a hadoop specific access method
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Actually, I'm going to *insist* that we lose the index AM scan
altogether.
Except that the inessential feature in
Howdy,
I have a question about the design consideration for system catalogs.
Some of tables include arrays to hold the variable informations, such
as tracking the procedure declaration informations in pg_proc. To store
the informations for procedure parameters, there are proargtypes,
Hi,
Could you please let me know what are the outstanding features that are still
to be developed in the respective patches?
I'am currently referring the wiki: Todo and Claim for NTT and for HotStandby,
i see that almost all issues are closed. Are there any features / refactoring /
bugs
31 matches
Mail list logo
