Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 17.11.2010 03:56, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Robert Haas writes: On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:57 PM, marcin mank wrote: Can (should ?) unlogged tables' contents survive graceful (non-crash) shutdown? I don't think so. To make that work, you'd nee

Re: [HACKERS] Label switcher function

2010-11-16 Thread KaiGai Kohei
I revised my patch as I attached. The hook function is modified and consolidated as follows: typedef enum FunctionCallEventType { FCET_BE_HOOKED, FCET_PREPARE, FCET_START, FCET_END, FCET_ABORT, } FunctionCallEventType; typedef Datum (*function_call_event_type)(Oi

Re: [HACKERS] Extensible executor nodes for preparation of SQL/MED

2010-11-16 Thread Itagaki Takahiro
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:51, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:36, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I am of the opinion that a run-time-extensible set of plan node types >>> is merest fantasy.  We will never have that, so putting in

Re: [HACKERS] Adding nullable indicator to Describe

2010-11-16 Thread Tom Lane
Chris Forno writes: > I'd like to add information about whether or not a parameter or result can > potentially be NULL to the RowDescription message. There is noplace to put that without a FE/BE protocol break; and it's not worth it by itself. This is one of a number of things that we'll probabl

[HACKERS] Adding nullable indicator to Describe

2010-11-16 Thread Chris Forno
I'd like to add information about whether or not a parameter or result can potentially be NULL to the RowDescription message. Reason: I have the same reasons that Richard Jones did in 2006 ( http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-interfaces/2006-01/msg00043.php). I'm writing a Haskell library that d

Re: [HACKERS] Per-column collation

2010-11-16 Thread Pavel Stehule
2010/11/16 Tom Lane : > Martijn van Oosterhout writes: >> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:32:01PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> On tis, 2010-11-16 at 21:05 +0100, marcin mank wrote: It would be nice if we could have some mapping of locale names bult in, so one doesn`t have to write alter

Re: [HACKERS] contrib: auth_delay module

2010-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 8:15 PM, KaiGai Kohei wrote: > If we don't need a PoC module for each new hooks, I'm not strongly > motivated to push it into contrib tree. > How about your opinion? I'd say let it go, unless someone else feels strongly about it. > Sorry, I missed the manner of contrib mo

Re: [HACKERS] SQL/MED estimated time of arrival?

2010-11-16 Thread Shigeru HANADA
Thanks for the additional information! On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:31:43 -0800 Eric Davies wrote: > At 01:36 AM 11/16/2010, Shigeru HANADA wrote: > >On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 08:45:14 -0800 > >Eric Davies wrote: > >ISTM that index on a VTI table could be inconsistent when original > >(remote) data was chan

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread David Fetter
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 02:07:35PM -0800, David Fetter wrote: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 02:00:33PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > Yeah, you'd have to allow a flag to control the behavior. And in > > > that case I'd rather the flag have a single default rather than > > > different defaults dependi

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:57 PM, marcin mank wrote: >>> Can (should ?) unlogged tables' contents survive graceful (non-crash) >>> shutdown? > >> I don't think so.  To make that work, you'd need to keep track of >> every b

Re: [HACKERS] Extensible executor nodes for preparation of SQL/MED

2010-11-16 Thread Itagaki Takahiro
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:36, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I am of the opinion that a run-time-extensible set of plan node types >> is merest fantasy.  We will never have that, so putting in place 5% >> of the infrastructure for it is a waste of time a

Re: [HACKERS] contrib: auth_delay module

2010-11-16 Thread KaiGai Kohei
(2010/11/15 11:50), Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Jan Urbański (wulc...@wulczer.org) wrote: On 04/11/10 14:09, Robert Haas wrote: Hmm, I wonder how useful this is given that restriction. As Kai

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Josh Berkus
On 11/16/10 4:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > But I'm happy to leave all of this until we gain some field experience > with this feature, and have a better idea what features people would > most like to see. +1. Let's not complicate this. -- -- Josh Berkus

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:57 PM, marcin mank wrote: >> Can (should ?) unlogged tables' contents survive graceful (non-crash) >> shutdown? > I don't think so. To make that work, you'd need to keep track of > every backing file that might contain pages not fsync()'d to disk

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:57 PM, marcin mank wrote: > Can (should ?) unlogged tables' contents survive graceful (non-crash) > shutdown? I don't think so. To make that work, you'd need to keep track of every backing file that might contain pages not fsync()'d to disk, and at shutdown time you'd

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread marcin mank
Can (should ?) unlogged tables' contents survive graceful (non-crash) shutdown? Greetings Marcin Mańk -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On Tuesday 16 November 2010 23:12:10 Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 11/16/10 2:08 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> > On tis, 2010-11-16 at 14:00 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: >> >> It seems to me >> >> that most people using unlogged tables won't want to

Re: [HACKERS] MULTISET and additional functions for ARRAY

2010-11-16 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > On fre, 2010-11-12 at 09:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> But I'm still not convinced that this feature is useful enough to >> justify the implementation effort. AFAICS there's nothing here that >> you couldn't get with some non-default operators on regular arrays, > Uniqu

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Josh Berkus
> That's a very debatable assumption. You got any evidence for it? > Personally, I don't think pg_dump should ever default to omitting > data. Survey launched, although it may become a moot point, given how this discussion is going. -- -- Josh Berkus

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus writes: >> Yeah, you'd have to allow a flag to control the behavior. And in that >> case I'd rather the flag have a single default rather than different >> defaults depending on whether or not individual tables were selected. >> Something like --omit-unlogged-data. > Are you sure we

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Andres Freund
On Tuesday 16 November 2010 23:30:29 Andres Freund wrote: > On Tuesday 16 November 2010 23:12:10 Josh Berkus wrote: > > On 11/16/10 2:08 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > On tis, 2010-11-16 at 14:00 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > >> It seems to me > > >> that most people using unlogged tables won't

Re: [HACKERS] Per-column collation

2010-11-16 Thread Tom Lane
Martijn van Oosterhout writes: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:32:01PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On tis, 2010-11-16 at 21:05 +0100, marcin mank wrote: >>> It would be nice if we could have some mapping of locale names bult >>> in, so one doesn`t have to write alternative sql depending on DB >

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Kevin Grittner
Andres Freund wrote: > One way your backup runs too long and too much data changes, the > other way round you loose the data which you assumed safely > backuped. > > Isn't that a *really* easy decision? Yeah. Count me in the camp which wants the default behavior to be that pg_dump backs up a

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Andres Freund
On Tuesday 16 November 2010 23:12:10 Josh Berkus wrote: > On 11/16/10 2:08 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On tis, 2010-11-16 at 14:00 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> It seems to me > >> that most people using unlogged tables won't want to back them up ... > >> especially since the share lock for pg

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improved parallel make support

2010-11-16 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > On mån, 2010-11-15 at 23:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> It's clear to me that we are very far from having a handle on what >> it'll really take to run parallel builds safely, and I am therefore >> now of the opinion that we ought to revert the patch. > We don't have to r

[HACKERS] Re: possible concurrency bug or mistake in understanding read-committed behavior

2010-11-16 Thread Kevin Grittner
Jignesh Shah wrote: > The question is should the delete fail if it doesn't exist and > cause a rollback or succeed with DELETE 0 ? I think existing behavior is consistent with both the standard and the other behaviors of PostgreSQL at the READ COMMITTED isolation level. I might have found it

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 00:08 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On tis, 2010-11-16 at 14:00 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > It seems to me > > that most people using unlogged tables won't want to back them up ... > > especially since the share lock for pgdump will add overhead for the > > kinds of high-

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think allowing pg_dump to dump the data in an unlogged table is not >> only reasonable, but essential. > Yeah, you'd have to allow a flag to control the behavior. And in that > case I'd rather the flag have a single def

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 11/16/2010 05:12 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: On 11/16/10 2:08 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On tis, 2010-11-16 at 14:00 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: It seems to me that most people using unlogged tables won't want to back them up ... especially since the share lock for pgdump will add overhead for t

Re: [HACKERS] MULTISET and additional functions for ARRAY

2010-11-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On fre, 2010-11-12 at 09:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > But I'm still not convinced that this feature is useful enough to > justify the implementation effort. AFAICS there's nothing here that > you couldn't get with some non-default operators on regular arrays, Unique constraints would behave differ

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 14:00 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Yeah, you'd have to allow a flag to control the behavior. And in that > > case I'd rather the flag have a single default rather than different > > defaults depending on whether or not individual tables were selected. > > Something like --om

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Josh Berkus
On 11/16/10 2:08 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On tis, 2010-11-16 at 14:00 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: >> It seems to me >> that most people using unlogged tables won't want to back them up ... >> especially since the share lock for pgdump will add overhead for the >> kinds of high-volume updates peo

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tis, 2010-11-16 at 14:00 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > It seems to me > that most people using unlogged tables won't want to back them up ... > especially since the share lock for pgdump will add overhead for the > kinds of high-volume updates people want to do with unlogged tables. Or perhaps mo

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread David Fetter
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 02:00:33PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Yeah, you'd have to allow a flag to control the behavior. And in > > that case I'd rather the flag have a single default rather than > > different defaults depending on whether or not individual tables > > were selected. Something l

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Josh Berkus
> Yeah, you'd have to allow a flag to control the behavior. And in that > case I'd rather the flag have a single default rather than different > defaults depending on whether or not individual tables were selected. > Something like --omit-unlogged-data. Are you sure we don't want to default the

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera >>> I think if you do a regular backup of the complete database, unlogged >>> tables should come out empty, but if you specifically request a dump of >>> it, it shouldn't. > >

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improved parallel make support

2010-11-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On mån, 2010-11-15 at 23:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > It's clear to me that we are very far from having a handle on what > it'll really take to run parallel builds safely, and I am therefore > now of the opinion that we ought to revert the patch. Hypothetical > gains in parallelism are useless if w

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tis, 2010-11-16 at 16:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Well, my expectation would be that the committer would reset the > catversion to current date when it goes into master. The question is > whether such a practice would be (a) helpful to testers and/or (b) > useful to the committer. As with most

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 11/16/2010 02:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I think if you do a regular backup of the complete database, unlogged tables should come out empty, but if you specifically request a dump of it, it shouldn't. Oh, wow. That seems confusing.

Re: [HACKERS] Per-column collation

2010-11-16 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:32:01PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On tis, 2010-11-16 at 21:05 +0100, marcin mank wrote: > > It would be nice if we could have some mapping of locale names bult > > in, so one doesn`t have to write alternative sql depending on DB > > server OS: > > select * from tab

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Btw., I would recommend that even in-progress or proposed patches >> include catversion updates, > I thought we had a policy of NOT doing that, because of the merge > conflicts thereby created. It's also hard to k

Re: [HACKERS] Per-column collation

2010-11-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tis, 2010-11-16 at 21:40 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: > ok, then we should to define this alias manually > > some like - CREATE COLLATE "czech" FOR LOCALE "cs_CZ.UTF8" > > or some similar. Without this, the application or stored procedures > can be non portable between UNIX and WIN. Yes, such

Re: [HACKERS] GiST insert algorithm rewrite

2010-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> Oh.  So do the indexes just degrade over time until they eventually >> need to be REINDEX'd? > > At some point you might reach a state where a reindex would be helpful. > But the same is true of btrees.  I don't think this

Re: [HACKERS] GiST insert algorithm rewrite

2010-11-16 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 16.11.2010 21:20, Teodor Sigaev wrote: they are consistent with the new key we're inserting. The old GiST algorithm adjusted all the parent pages only after inserting the tuple on the leaf. Updating them on the way down ensures that the tree is Hm, performance? while you traverse to leaf page

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> I think if you do a regular backup of the complete database, unlogged >> tables should come out empty, but if you specifically request a dump of >> it, it shouldn't. > Oh, wow. That seems confusing. I don't like it either.

Re: [HACKERS] GiST insert algorithm rewrite

2010-11-16 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > Oh. So do the indexes just degrade over time until they eventually > need to be REINDEX'd? At some point you might reach a state where a reindex would be helpful. But the same is true of btrees. I don't think this is a serious objection, at least not unless backed by evide

Re: [HACKERS] Per-column collation

2010-11-16 Thread Pavel Stehule
2010/11/16 Peter Eisentraut : > On tis, 2010-11-16 at 20:59 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> 2010/11/16 Peter Eisentraut : >> > On tis, 2010-11-16 at 20:00 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> >> yes - my first question is: Why we need to specify encoding, when only >> >> one encoding is supported? I can't

Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum maintenance_work_mem

2010-11-16 Thread Josh Berkus
>> Relevant to this is the question: *when* does vacuum do its memory >> allocation? Is memory allocation reasonably front-loaded, or does >> vacuum keep grabbing more RAM until it's done? > > All at start. That means that "allocation by halves" would work fine. --

Re: [HACKERS] Per-column collation

2010-11-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tis, 2010-11-16 at 21:05 +0100, marcin mank wrote: > It would be nice if we could have some mapping of locale names bult > in, so one doesn`t have to write alternative sql depending on DB > server OS: > select * from tab order by foo collate "Polish, Poland" > select * from tab order by foo coll

Re: [HACKERS] Per-column collation

2010-11-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tis, 2010-11-16 at 20:59 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2010/11/16 Peter Eisentraut : > > On tis, 2010-11-16 at 20:00 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> yes - my first question is: Why we need to specify encoding, when only > >> one encoding is supported? I can't to use a cs_CZ.iso88592 when my db

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tis, 2010-11-16 at 15:08 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > Btw., I would recommend that even in-progress or proposed patches > > include catversion updates, which helps communicate the message such > as > > yours in a more robust manner and also reduces the chance of > forgetting > > the catversion

Re: [HACKERS] Per-column collation

2010-11-16 Thread Pavel Stehule
2010/11/16 marcin mank : >> I can only look at the locales that the operating system provides.  We >> could conceivably make some simplifications like stripping off the >> ".utf8", but then how far do we go and where do we stop?  Locale names >> on Windows look different too.  But in general, how d

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On lör, 2010-11-13 at 19:16 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> 1. The first one (relpersistence-v1) is a mostly mechanical patch that >> replaces pg_class.relistemp (a Boolean) with pg_class.relpersistence >> (a character), so that we can suppor

[HACKERS] Re: possible concurrency bug or mistake in understanding read-committed behavior

2010-11-16 Thread Jignesh Shah
Actually cutting down my mail to something more readable.. Lets consider two transactions BEGIN; BEGIN; DELETE FROM sbtest WHERE id=500815; INSERT INTO sbtest values(500815,0,'','aaffrreeyy'); DELETE FROM sbtest WHERE id=500815;

Re: [HACKERS] Explain analyze getrusage tracking

2010-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Greg Stark wrote: >> Yeah, VERBOSE is kind of a catch-all for things that we don't have >> individual flags for.  But I think it's better for each piece of data >> to depend on one setting, rather than a combination of two or more >> settings.  Otherwise you end up

Re: [HACKERS] Per-column collation

2010-11-16 Thread marcin mank
> I can only look at the locales that the operating system provides.  We > could conceivably make some simplifications like stripping off the > ".utf8", but then how far do we go and where do we stop?  Locale names > on Windows look different too.  But in general, how do you suppose we > should map

Re: [HACKERS] Per-column collation

2010-11-16 Thread Pavel Stehule
2010/11/16 Peter Eisentraut : > On tis, 2010-11-16 at 20:00 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> yes - my first question is: Why we need to specify encoding, when only >> one encoding is supported? I can't to use a cs_CZ.iso88592 when my db >> use a UTF8 - btw there is wrong message: >> >> yyy=# select *

Re: [HACKERS] Explain analyze getrusage tracking

2010-11-16 Thread Greg Stark
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I think we should have a project policy of always printing memory and >> disk usage in kB, MB, GB etc unless they're functions returning an >> integer intended for machine use. > > rhaas=# set work_mem to '1048577kB'; Interesting. Though in

Re: [HACKERS] track_functions default

2010-11-16 Thread Cédric Villemain
2010/11/16 Magnus Hagander : > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 16:09, Tom Lane wrote: >> Magnus Hagander writes: >>> Is there a particular reason why track_functions is disabled by default? >> >> Performance worries, plus the thought that not everyone cares to >> have these stats. > > Most people who are

[HACKERS] possible concurrency bug or mistake in understanding read-committed behavior

2010-11-16 Thread Jignesh Shah
Hello All, I am recently using sysbench with PostgreSQL 9.0 and 8.4.5 and doing some tests on 8core systems with SSDs. I seem to be hitting some problems with the read-write tests and hoping to see if it is a possible concurrency bug or expected behavior. Using sysbench with 1M rows and 80+ t

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On lör, 2010-11-13 at 19:16 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > 1. The first one (relpersistence-v1) is a mostly mechanical patch that > replaces pg_class.relistemp (a Boolean) with pg_class.relpersistence > (a character), so that we can support more than two values. BE SURE > YOU INITDB, since the old ca

Re: [HACKERS] Explain analyze getrusage tracking

2010-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Greg Stark wrote: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I don't really think these changes to the INSTR macros make much >> sense. The macros don't really add much notational convenience; >> they're mostly wrappers to make the WIN32 and non-WI

Re: [HACKERS] Per-column collation

2010-11-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tis, 2010-11-16 at 20:00 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: > yes - my first question is: Why we need to specify encoding, when only > one encoding is supported? I can't to use a cs_CZ.iso88592 when my db > use a UTF8 - btw there is wrong message: > > yyy=# select * from jmena order by jmeno collate "

Re: [HACKERS] GiST insert algorithm rewrite

2010-11-16 Thread Teodor Sigaev
they are consistent with the new key we're inserting. The old GiST algorithm adjusted all the parent pages only after inserting the tuple on the leaf. Updating them on the way down ensures that the tree is Hm, performance? while you traverse to leaf page, on each inner page you will need to call

Re: [HACKERS] GiST insert algorithm rewrite

2010-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> If we start to enlarge the bounding boxes on the higher levels of the >> tree and then crash before inserting the key, is there any mechanism >> for getting them back down to the minimal size? > > No. There's also no mechanism for trimm

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar nov 16 15:34:55 -0300 2010: >> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Andy Colson wrote: > >> > dump/restore? >> >> All of those.  I guess there's a question of what pg_dump should emit >> for an unlogge

Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum maintenance_work_mem

2010-11-16 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of mar nov 16 15:52:14 -0300 2010: > > > I think the difficulty is figuring out what to get the existing > > workers to give us some memory when a new one comes along. You want > > the first worker to potentially use ALL the memory... until worker #2 > > arrive

Re: [HACKERS] Per-column collation

2010-11-16 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello 2010/11/16 Peter Eisentraut : > On mån, 2010-11-15 at 23:13 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> a) default encoding for collate isn't same as default encoding of database >> >> it's minimally not friendly - mostly used encoding is UTF8, but in >> most cases users should to write locale.utf8. > >

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar nov 16 15:34:55 -0300 2010: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Andy Colson wrote: > > dump/restore? > > All of those. I guess there's a question of what pg_dump should emit > for an unlogged table. Clearly, we need to dump a CREATE UNLOGGED > TABLE st

Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum maintenance_work_mem

2010-11-16 Thread Josh Berkus
> I think the difficulty is figuring out what to get the existing > workers to give us some memory when a new one comes along. You want > the first worker to potentially use ALL the memory... until worker #2 > arrives. Yeah, doing this would mean that you couldn't give worker #1 all the memory,

Re: [HACKERS] GiST insert algorithm rewrite

2010-11-16 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 16.11.2010 20:46, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: BTW, I don't try to fix incomplete splits during vacuum in the patch. That's perhaps a bit surprising, and probably would be easy to add, but I left it out for now as it's not strictly necessary.

Re: [HACKERS] GiST insert algorithm rewrite

2010-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > BTW, I don't try to fix incomplete splits during vacuum in the patch. That's > perhaps a bit surprising, and probably would be easy to add, but I left it > out for now as it's not strictly necessary. Seems like it would be good to have

Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum maintenance_work_mem

2010-11-16 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 10:36 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 11/16/10 9:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > I'm a little skeptical about creating more memory tunables. DBAs who > > are used to previous versions of PG will find that their vacuum is now > > really slow, because they adjusted maintenance_wor

Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum maintenance_work_mem

2010-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 11/16/10 9:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I'm a little skeptical about creating more memory tunables.  DBAs who >> are used to previous versions of PG will find that their vacuum is now >> really slow, because they adjusted maintenance_work_me

Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum maintenance_work_mem

2010-11-16 Thread Josh Berkus
On 11/16/10 9:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I'm a little skeptical about creating more memory tunables. DBAs who > are used to previous versions of PG will find that their vacuum is now > really slow, because they adjusted maintenance_work_mem but not this Also, generally people who are using autov

Re: [HACKERS] Extensible executor nodes for preparation of SQL/MED

2010-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Itagaki Takahiro writes: >> Here is a WIP patch to extensible executor nodes. > > I am of the opinion that a run-time-extensible set of plan node types > is merest fantasy.  We will never have that, so putting in place 5% > of the infrastructure

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Andy Colson wrote: > I was able to apply and compile and run ok, creating unlogged tables seems > to work as well. > > I patched up pgbench to optionally create unlogged tables, and ran it both > ways.  I get ~80tps normally, and ~1,500tps with unlogged.  (Thats fr

Re: [HACKERS] Extensible executor nodes for preparation of SQL/MED

2010-11-16 Thread Tom Lane
Itagaki Takahiro writes: > Here is a WIP patch to extensible executor nodes. I am of the opinion that a run-time-extensible set of plan node types is merest fantasy. We will never have that, so putting in place 5% of the infrastructure for it is a waste of time and notational complexity. I woul

Re: [HACKERS] GiST insert algorithm rewrite

2010-11-16 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 16.11.2010 20:01, Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas writes: 2. When a page is split, we mark the new left page with a flag to indicate that the downlink for the page to the right hasn't been inserted yet. When the downlink is inserted, the flag is cleared. Again the purpose is to ensure tha

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Tom Lane
Andy Colson writes: > Is "create temp unlogged table stuff(...)" an option? temp tables are unlogged already. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref

Re: [HACKERS] GCC vs clang

2010-11-16 Thread Tom Lane
"Greg Sabino Mullane" writes: > Tom asked: >> What happens to plperl? > It still doesn't work. I was going to leave it out via --without-perl, > and save fixing that for another day. There's a handful of other > warnings when making, but --with-perl is the only showstopper > (once the GNU_SOUR

Re: [HACKERS] unlogged tables

2010-11-16 Thread Andy Colson
I was able to apply and compile and run ok, creating unlogged tables seems to work as well. I patched up pgbench to optionally create unlogged tables, and ran it both ways. I get ~80tps normally, and ~1,500tps with unlogged. (Thats from memory, was playing with it last night at home) I als

Re: [HACKERS] GCC vs clang

2010-11-16 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Tom asked: > What happens to plperl? It still doesn't work. I was going to leave it out via --without-perl, and save fixing that for another day. There's a handful of other warnings when making, but --with-perl is the only showstopper (once

Re: [HACKERS] GiST insert algorithm rewrite

2010-11-16 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas writes: > There are two key changes to the insert algorithm: > 1. When we walk down the tree searching for a suitable leaf page to > insert the new tuple to, we update the nodes on the way down so that > they are consistent with the new key we're inserting. The old GiST > al

Re: [HACKERS] SQL/MED estimated time of arrival?

2010-11-16 Thread Eric Davies
At 01:36 AM 11/16/2010, Shigeru HANADA wrote: Thanks for the information about Informix VTI. Because I'm not familiar to Informix, I might have missed your point. Would you mind telling me more about Informix VTI? On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 08:45:14 -0800 Eric Davies wrote: > With Informix VTI, i

Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum maintenance_work_mem

2010-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Magnus was just talking to me about having a better way of controlling > memory usage on autovacuum.  Instead of each worker using up to > maintenance_work_mem, which ends up as a disaster when DBA A sets to a > large value and DBA B raises

Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum maintenance_work_mem

2010-11-16 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 16.11.2010 18:12, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Thoughts? Sounds reasonable, but you know what would be even better? Use less memory in vacuum, so that it doesn't become an issue to begin with. There was some discussion on that back in 2007 (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-02/ms

Re: [HACKERS] Explain analyze getrusage tracking

2010-11-16 Thread Greg Stark
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I don't really think these changes to the INSTR macros make much > sense.  The macros don't really add much notational convenience; > they're mostly wrappers to make the WIN32 and non-WIN32 cases work > similarly for the instrumentation stuff,

Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum maintenance_work_mem

2010-11-16 Thread Tom Lane
Itagaki Takahiro writes: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:12, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> So for the initial implementation, we could just have each worker set >> its local maintenance_work_mem to autovacuum_maintenance_memory / >> max_workers. >> That way there's never excessive memory usage. > It so

Re: [HACKERS] Per-column collation

2010-11-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On mån, 2010-11-15 at 23:13 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: > a) default encoding for collate isn't same as default encoding of database > > it's minimally not friendly - mostly used encoding is UTF8, but in > most cases users should to write locale.utf8. I don't understand what you are trying to say

Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum maintenance_work_mem

2010-11-16 Thread Itagaki Takahiro
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:12, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > So for the initial implementation, we could just have each worker set > its local maintenance_work_mem to autovacuum_maintenance_memory / max_workers. > That way there's never excessive memory usage. It sounds reasonable, but is there the sam

Re: [HACKERS] GCC vs clang

2010-11-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tis, 2010-11-16 at 09:41 -0500, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > I've been trying to get clang working enough that I can at > least get HEAD going for a build farm client, and the attached > patch is the bare minimum to get it working. There may be a > better way to do this, but as indicated in a

[HACKERS] autovacuum maintenance_work_mem

2010-11-16 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Magnus was just talking to me about having a better way of controlling memory usage on autovacuum. Instead of each worker using up to maintenance_work_mem, which ends up as a disaster when DBA A sets to a large value and DBA B raises autovacuum_max_workers, we could simply have an "autovacuum_main

Re: [HACKERS] B-tree parent pointer and checkpoints

2010-11-16 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 13.11.2010 00:34, Greg Stark wrote: On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: I think we can work around that with a small modification to the page split algorithm. In a nutshell, when the child page is split, put a flag on the left half indicating that the rightlink must a

Re: [HACKERS] Isn't HANDLE 64 bits on Win64?

2010-11-16 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 16:35, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: >> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 16:23, Tom Lane wrote: >>> What's not clear to me is whether the section title means that only >>> certain handles have this guarantee, and if so whether we have to worry >>> about running into on

Re: [HACKERS] Isn't HANDLE 64 bits on Win64?

2010-11-16 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 16:23, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: >> Do you still have a reference to the page that said they will never be >> assigned that high? > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms810720.aspx > > which says > >    USER and GDI handles are sign extended 32b valu

Re: [HACKERS] track_functions default

2010-11-16 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 16:09, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: >> Is there a particular reason why track_functions is disabled by default? > > Performance worries, plus the thought that not everyone cares to > have these stats. Most people who are actively using stored procedures proba

Re: [HACKERS] GCC vs clang

2010-11-16 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Sabino Mullane writes: > I've been trying to get clang working enough that I can at > least get HEAD going for a build farm client, and the attached > patch is the bare minimum to get it working. There may be a > better way to do this, but as indicated in a past thread, the > GNU_SOURCE v

Re: [HACKERS] Isn't HANDLE 64 bits on Win64?

2010-11-16 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 15:42, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: >> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:01, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> So yes, it looks completely broken. I guess Windows doesn't actually >>> *assign* you a handle larger than 2^32 until you actually ahve that >>> many open handles

[HACKERS] GCC vs clang

2010-11-16 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
I've been trying to get clang working enough that I can at least get HEAD going for a build farm client, and the attached patch is the bare minimum to get it working. There may be a better way to do this, but as indicated in a past thread, the GNU_SOURCE variable does not play nicely with clang

  1   2   >