On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 18:05, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:49 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 01:38 -0700, Daniel Farina wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
Parallel to pg_cancel_backend, it'd be nice to allow the user to just
outright kill a
On 03/26/2012 03:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Replace empty locale name with implied value in CREATE DATABASE and initdb.
setlocale() accepts locale name as meaning the locale specified by the
process's environment variables. Historically we've accepted that for
Postgres' locale settings, too.
Hello, This is new version of patch for dblink using row processor.
- Use palloc to allocate temporaly memoriy blocks.
- Memory allocation is now done in once. Preallocate a block of
initial size and palloc simplified reallocation code.
- Resurrected the route for command invoking. And
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Friday, March 16, 2012 10:40:46 AM Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
This will have the effect of calling triggers outside of alphabetic
order. I don't think thats a good idea even if one part is ANY and the
other a
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:50 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
s/segment/file/g?
Yep, file might be more intuitive for a user than segment. Attached is
the
file version of the patch.
We're already using file to mean something different *internally*,
don't we? And since
Hello Tom,
I started to look at this patch a bit. I'm quite confused by the fact
that some, but not all, of the possible FK action types now come in an
EACH variant. This makes no sense at all to me. ISTM that EACH is a
property of the FK constraint as a whole, that is that it says the
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:50 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
s/segment/file/g?
We're already using file to mean something different *internally*,
don't we? And since pg_controldata shows fairly internal information,
I'm not sure this
Stefan Kaltenbrunner ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc writes:
On 03/26/2012 03:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Replace empty locale name with implied value in CREATE DATABASE and initdb.
hmm seems like this commit broken quagga:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Michael Tautschnig m...@debian.org wrote:
Here, the two writes on Worker 0 corresponds to lines 15 and 16. And indeed
line 16 is exactly the call to SetLatch. For solving problem 1, the mp idiom,
the following options are possible (in all cases stronger
I'm not sure if this is a bug, but I have wrestling with this problem
for a client.
Platform is Windows Servers 2003 64 bit, PostgreSQL 8.4.8., 4Gb RAM,
running on an Amazon VM.
Shared buffers: 512Mb, work_mem: 25Mb. There are only a handful of
connections to the database, and no other
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié mar 21 21:50:24 -0300 2012:
heap_freeze_tuple() was apparently designed at one point to cope with
being called with either a shared or exclusive buffer lock. But none
hello,
does the problem show up on 2% of all problems after 2 weeks or so?
we had a similar problem on UNIX as well. it even materialized on 100 identical
boxes (on 2% of them). it pops up randomly and never stops …
i checked some code paths. some of those messages are direct output via stderr
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
I'm really perplexed as to why this fairly simple query should cause an
out of memory error:
select loid, max(pageno) from ldata group by loid order by 2 desc
limit 10;
Looks like the group by/aggregate step is eating lots of memory:
On 03/26/2012 11:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net writes:
I'm really perplexed as to why this fairly simple query should cause an
out of memory error:
select loid, max(pageno) from ldata group by loid order by 2 desc
limit 10;
Looks like the group
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 03/26/2012 11:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Could we see EXPLAIN output for this query?
Currently it shows:
Limit (cost=19443025.87..19443025.89 rows=10 width=8
- Sort (cost=19443025.87..19446451.29 rows=1370168 width=8)
Sort Key:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
TupleHashTable: 619175960 total in 95 blocks; 821528 free
(331 chunks); 618354432 used
I think the plan you showed isn't the plan that's running out of
memory. I think it's running out of memory because
On 03/26/2012 12:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net writes:
On 03/26/2012 11:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Could we see EXPLAIN output for this query?
Currently it shows:
Limit (cost=19443025.87..19443025.89 rows=10 width=8
- Sort (cost=19443025.87..19446451.29
On 03/26/2012 12:20 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote:
TupleHashTable: 619175960 total in 95 blocks; 821528 free
(331 chunks); 618354432 used
I think the plan you showed isn't the plan that's running out of
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 03/26/2012 12:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
That plan should not create a tuple hash table, so I think it's almost
certain that the plan changed. It might be interesting to remove the
pg_statistic rows for the table and then see what plan you get.
On mån, 2012-03-19 at 15:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
This connects somewhat to the discussions we've had in the past about
trying to get not-intended-for-public-use functions out of the
standard search path. Not that you want to put a full visibility
check into the tab-completion query, but if
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Combo CIDs: 755490840 total in 100 blocks; 5161072 free (381
chunks); 750329768 used
I think you'll have to catch Heikki's attention to get a good answer to this.
Is it possible this job is inserting and then
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Hm. This illustrates that it's not too prudent to rely on a default
numdistinct estimate to decide that a hash aggregation is safe :-(.
We had probably better tweak the cost estimation rules to not trust
that. Maybe, if we
On 26.03.2012 19:51, Greg Stark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote:
Combo CIDs: 755490840 total in 100 blocks; 5161072 free (381
chunks); 750329768 used
I think you'll have to catch Heikki's attention to get a good answer to this.
Is
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Hm. This illustrates that it's not too prudent to rely on a default
numdistinct estimate to decide that a hash aggregation is safe :-(.
We had probably better tweak the cost estimation rules to not trust
that. Maybe, if we
On 26.03.2012 19:59, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 26.03.2012 19:51, Greg Stark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net
wrote:
Combo CIDs: 755490840 total in 100 blocks; 5161072 free (381
chunks); 750329768 used
I think you'll have to catch Heikki's attention
Greg Stark st...@mit.edu writes:
I have a sketch for how to handle spilling hash aggregates to disk in
my head. I'm not sure if it's worth the amount of complexity it would
require but I'll poke around a bit and see if it works out well.
It'd be awfully nice if those could spill to disk. I
On 03/26/2012 01:06 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 26.03.2012 19:59, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 26.03.2012 19:51, Greg Stark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net
wrote:
Combo CIDs: 755490840 total in 100 blocks; 5161072 free (381
chunks); 750329768
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 03/26/2012 01:06 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Is it possible this job is inserting and then updating (or deleteing)
the row it just inserted and doing a large number of such
insert/update operations all within the same transaction? Or perhaps
On 03/26/2012 01:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net writes:
On 03/26/2012 01:06 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Is it possible this job is inserting and then updating (or deleteing)
the row it just inserted and doing a large number of such
insert/update operations all
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 03/26/2012 01:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Hm. The test case is just a straight pg_restore of lots and lots of LOs?
What pg_dump version was the dump made with?
8.4.8, same as the target. We get the same issue whether we restore
direct to the
On 03/26/2012 04:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc writes:
On 03/26/2012 03:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Replace empty locale name with implied value in CREATE DATABASE and initdb.
hmm seems like this commit broken quagga:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
Remove dead assignment
found by Coverity
init_sequence(seq_relid, elm, seq_rel);
- seq = read_info(elm, seq_rel, buf);
+ read_info(elm, seq_rel, buf);
I have to object to this patch. In the blind service of eliminating
warnings from some tool
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Dimitri's proposed behavior would be advantageous if you have an ANY
trigger that wants to take over the world and make sure that nobody
else can run before it. I think, though, that's not a case we want to
cater to - all of this stuff requires
On mån, 2012-03-26 at 15:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
init_sequence(seq_relid, elm, seq_rel);
- seq = read_info(elm, seq_rel, buf);
+ read_info(elm, seq_rel, buf);
I have to object to this patch. In the blind service of eliminating
warnings from some tool or other, you will
Can someone clarify whether this will be reviewed by a committer?
Will there be time to get this reviewed before the commitfest closes?
I get the impression the commitfest closure is fairly imminent.
Thom
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On mån, 2012-03-26 at 15:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I also do not think it does anything for readability for this call
of read_info() to be unexpectedly unlike all the others.
I do not think that it is good code quality to assign something to a
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
One use case would be for londiste/slony/bucardo to rewrite the command
and queue its text, that will be done in C and should probably be done
first. Using an ANY command trigger means that code will run before user
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Dimitri's proposed behavior would be advantageous if you have an ANY
trigger that wants to take over the world and make sure that nobody
else can run before it. I think, though, that's not a case we want
Thom Brown thombr...@gmail.com writes:
Can someone clarify whether this will be reviewed by a committer?
Will there be time to get this reviewed before the commitfest closes?
I get the impression the commitfest closure is fairly imminent.
I don't have that impression. (I wish I did.)
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Thom Brown thombr...@gmail.com wrote:
Can someone clarify whether this will be reviewed by a committer?
Will there be time to get this reviewed before the commitfest closes?
I get the impression the commitfest closure is fairly imminent.
Well, I have been
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
So I don't think that the mere fact of being an ANY trigger rather than
a command-specific trigger should be taken to mean that a particular
ordering is desirable. Trigger name order isn't the greatest solution
by any means, but it's more flexible than
On Monday, March 26, 2012 10:18:59 PM Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
don't know how to fix the plpython specifics he's talking
about.
Just copy what is done in the normal trigger handling facility (the decref
both in the CATCH and in the normal path). Ping me some other way if you need
help...
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
1. It sure seems like there is an awful lot of code churn and design
work going on.
There has only been minor adjustments for a while now, and they have
been visible because Thom was doing lots of testing for me and it was
way easier for me to publish a
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss increasing checkpoint frequency (ie:
decreasing checkpoint_timeout).
I'm not dismissing that, but my tests show only a very small gain in
that area. Now there may be another test where it shows
On 26 March 2012 21:36, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Personally, I am about at the point where I'd like to punt everything
and move on. As nice as it would be to squeeze a few more things into
9.2, there WILL be a 9.3. If a few less
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 18:48, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Maybe we should just not worry about this.
That's been my reaction right along. There's no evidence that PID
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Well, wait a minute. There's a difference between half-baked and
reacting to a review that changes the goal of a patch. My idea of the
code I wanted to write here is extremely different from what we as a
community
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
I wasn't aware that was the reason there. I think it was the general
leftovers from previous times. When we first created
pg_terminate_backend() there was a general thought that it might not
be safe to just SIGTERM a backend to make it quit.
Not
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
As soon as we're done here, the CommitFest will end, and there won't
be any other people's patches to review.
Hurray? :-)
--
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, How would the
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
2. I'm not sure which patches Tom is planning to look at or in what
order, so I've been avoiding the ones he seems to be taking an
interest in.
Well, I think I'm definitely on the hook for the pg_stat_statements,
pgsql_fdw, foreign table stats, and
On Mar 26, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
2. I'm not sure which patches Tom is planning to look at or in what
order, so I've been avoiding the ones he seems to be taking an
interest in.
Well, I think I'm definitely on the hook
On 26 March 2012 23:16, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 26, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Well, I think I'm definitely on the hook for the pg_stat_statements,
pgsql_fdw, foreign table stats, and caching-stable-subexpressions
patches, and I should look at
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm not. I still wouldn't trust SIGTERMing an individual backend in a
production database. It'll probably work, but what if it doesn't?
Best-case scenario is you'll need to do a panic shutdown to clear the
stuck lock or
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mar 26, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
2. I'm not sure which patches Tom is planning to look at or in what
order, so I've been avoiding the ones he seems to be taking an
interest in.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm not sure - perhaps we're past that worry these days?
I'm not. I still wouldn't trust SIGTERMing an individual backend in a
production database. It'll probably work, but what if it doesn't?
Best-case scenario is you'll
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Greg Stark st...@mit.edu writes:
I have a sketch for how to handle spilling hash aggregates to disk in
my head. I'm not sure if it's worth the amount of complexity it would
require but I'll poke around a bit and see if it
Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com writes:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm not. I still wouldn't trust SIGTERMing an individual backend in a
production database.
Okay, it was my precise intention to hand this to users so that not
only could they cancel
Greg Stark st...@mit.edu writes:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Could you give us a brain dump on the sketch? I've never seen how to
do it without unreasonable overhead.
Hm. So my original plan was dependent on adding the state-merge
function we've
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I think the more important question is a policy question: do we want
it to work like this? It seems like a policy question that ought to
be left to the DBA, but we have no policy management framework for
DBAs to configure what they do or do not wish
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Hi,
I guess I sent v17 a little early considering that we now already have
v18 including support for CREATE TABLE AS and SELECT INTO, thanks to the
work of Andres and Tom.
There was some spurious tags in the
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Hrm, I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.
Me: This mechanism hasn't been tested enough, and may still have nasty bugs.
You: Then let's invent some entirely new mechanism.
I'm not seeing how that responds to the
I'm sorry to have coded a silly bug.
The previous patch has a bug in realloc size calculation.
And separation of the 'connname patch' was incomplete in regtest.
It is fixed in this patch.
regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
diff --git a/contrib/dblink/dblink.c
Hi,
now I find that params for execute statement are evaluated before
PortalRun, using another temporary estate. Is it necessary? Or can we evaluate
params during executions, that is, in ExecEvalParam function? then we can use
the same estate as one for executor, which can save time to
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
[ various trivial issues ]
OK, now I got that out of my system. Now on to bigger topics.
I am extremely concerned about the way in which this patch arranges to
invoke command triggers. You've got call sites spattered
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 01:39, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Thom Brown t...@linux.com writes:
This is probably a dumb question but... surely there's more than 2
committers able to review?
Able and willing might be two different things. Alvaro,
66 matches
Mail list logo
