On 24.03.2012 22:12, Joshua Berkus wrote:
Qi,
Yeah, I can see that. That's a sign that you had a good idea for a project,
actually: your idea is interesting enough that people want to debate it. Make
a proposal on Monday and our potential mentors will help you refine the idea.
Yep. The
On 17.04.2012 07:56, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2012/4/16 Heikki Linnakangasheikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com:
Ok, committed. I fixed the .PHONY line as Tom pointed out, and changed MSVC
install.pm to also copy the header file.
Hello,
it doesn't work for modules from contrib directory
pavel
This is new version of the patch.
I replaced GetStandbyFlushRecPtr with GetXLogReplayRecPtr to
check progress of checkpoint following Fujii's sugestion.
The first one is for 9.2dev, and the second is 9.1.3 backported version.
===
By the way, I took a close look around there,
I agree with it
2012/4/17 Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com:
On 17.04.2012 07:56, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2012/4/16 Heikki Linnakangasheikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com:
Ok, committed. I fixed the .PHONY line as Tom pointed out, and changed
MSVC
install.pm to also copy the header file.
On 17.04.2012 09:50, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
This is new version of the patch.
I replaced GetStandbyFlushRecPtr with GetXLogReplayRecPtr to
check progress of checkpoint following Fujii's sugestion.
The reason we haven't historically obeyed checkpoint_segments during
recovery is that it slows
Hello
there is VIP patch of plpgsql_check_function that supports this warning
Regards
Pavel
2012/4/15 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
2012/4/15 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
We can raise warning from CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION - but I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
If the feature set is desirable, though, I wonder if Postgres is
big/high profile enough for them to figure out some sort of better
arrangement. They *love* it when big open-source projects use GitHub
as their public repo - they'll email
On 17.04.2012 02:54, Michael Nolan wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Thom Brownt...@linux.com wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed that when using synchronous replication (on 9.2devel at
least), temporary tables become really slow:
Since temporary tables are only present until the session ends
On 17 April 2012 11:30, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
What happens is that we write the commit record if the transaction accesses
a temporary table, but we don't flush it. However, we still wait until it's
replicated to the standby. The obvious fix is to not wait
Hello,
The reason we haven't historically obeyed checkpoint_segments
during recovery is that it slows down the recovery
unnecessarily if you're restoring from a backup and you replay,
The variable StandbyMode is false on archive recovery, so no
checkpoint triggerred during then.
xlog.c:10026
Hi, Heikki Thanks for your advice.I will change my plan accordingly. But
I have a few questions.
1. We probably don't want the SQL syntax to be added to the grammar.
This should be written as an extension, using custom functions as the
API, instead of extra SQL syntax.
1. This
Besides, I saw the Gsoc site editing has been closed. Should I just submit
through this mailing list with attachment?
Best Regards and ThanksHuang Qi VictorComputer Science of National University
of Singapore
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:16:29 +0300
From: heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
All but 4 regression tests pass, but they don't really count
as failures, since they're down to an assumption in the tests that the
order certain tuples appear should be the same as our current
quicksort
Sorry, I've wrote something wrong.
The reason we haven't historically obeyed checkpoint_segments
during recovery is that it slows down the recovery
unnecessarily if you're restoring from a backup and you replay,
The variable StandbyMode is false on archive recovery, so no
checkpoint
On 16 April 2012 17:21, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
No, that's not what I was referring to. If you don't have a standby
(i.e. a single, isolated database cluster with no replication), and
its synchronous_commit is
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote:
Well. maybe I spoke too soon...JNI is probably the best route. Since
SPI is off the table, all we're really pulling in from pl/java is the
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 23:48, Jay Levittjay.lev...@gmail.com wrote:
- Familiarity: Many developers already have a GitHub account and use it
Most of the more senior developers don't use github. Other than
possibly as a place to store a plain git repository. So that's
Jay Levitt jay.lev...@gmail.com writes:
(A quick Google shows redmine and especially Trac having spam issues
of their own.)
Ugh, redmine (or trac for that matters) has nothing to with handling
spam. I believe a typical bug tracker doesn't handle spam itself, it
lets the mailing system do
On 17.04.2012 14:10, Thom Brown wrote:
On 17 April 2012 11:30, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
What happens is that we write the commit record if the transaction accesses
a temporary table, but we don't flush it. However, we still wait until it's
replicated to the
On 17 April 2012 14:35, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 17.04.2012 14:10, Thom Brown wrote:
On 17 April 2012 11:30, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
What happens is that we write the commit record if the transaction
accesses
a
Hi,
When I committed Alex Shulgin's patch to add URI support to libpq, I
included the test harness as well. However, due to it being in a
separate subdirectory that did not previously had tests, it's not being
run by buildfarm.
It's not considered in make installcheck-world either.
What's
On 17.04.2012 14:55, Qi Huang wrote:
Hi, Heikki Thanks for your advice.I will change my plan accordingly. But
I have a few questions.
1. We probably don't want the SQL syntax to be added to the grammar.
This should be written as an extension, using custom functions as the
API, instead of
* Heikki Linnakangas (heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
1. We probably don't want the SQL syntax to be added to the grammar.
This should be written as an extension, using custom functions as
the API, instead of extra SQL syntax.
Err, I missed that, and don't particularly agree with
Jay Levitt jay.lev...@gmail.com writes:
No meaningful search, eh? Works for me.
Redmine searches return partial-word matches, and there's no way to
disable that. Searching for test finds latest. To me, that's
broken.
Well, I believe one can plug in a different search engine, like lucene
On 04/17/2012 09:12 AM, Atri Sharma wrote:
I just had a small doubt I wanted to clarify.I initially said in my
proposal that I would be using SPI for getting the FDW API to call
Pl/Java functions,but now,after discussion with the community,I have
changed the approach and I will be using JNI
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 04/17/2012 09:12 AM, Atri Sharma wrote:
I just had a small doubt I wanted to clarify.I initially said in my
proposal that I would be using SPI for getting the FDW API to call Pl/Java
functions,but now,after
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
* Heikki Linnakangas (heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
Another idea that Robert Haas suggested was to add support doing a
TID scan for a query like WHERE ctid '(501,1)'. That's not
enough work for GSoC project on its own, but could certainly
Hello, this message is attached with the patch which did not
tested. That is for show the way.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
But I think referring checkpoint_segment on such case should be
inhibited, and I suppose it is possible using
Alex Shulgin wrote:
Jay Levittjay.lev...@gmail.com writes:
(A quick Google shows redmine and especially Trac having spam issues
of their own.)
Ugh, redmine (or trac for that matters) has nothing to with handling
spam. I believe a typical bug tracker doesn't handle spam itself, it
lets the
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The thing I like most about temp indexes is that they needn't be temporary.
I'd like to see something along the lines of demand-created optional
indexes, that we reclaim space/maintenance overhead on according to
some
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Heikki Linnakangas (heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
1. We probably don't want the SQL syntax to be added to the grammar.
This should be written as an extension, using custom functions as
the API, instead of
2. It's not very useful if it's just a dummy replacement for WHERE
random() ?. It has to be more advanced than that. Quality of the
sample is important, as is performance. There was also an
interesting idea of on implementing monetary unit sampling.
In reviewing this, I got the
Qi,
* Qi Huang (huangq...@hotmail.com) wrote:
Doing it 'right' certainly isn't going to be simply taking what Neil did
and updating it, and I understand Tom's concerns about having this be
more than a hack on seqscan, so I'm a bit nervous that this would turn
into something bigger than a
The following patch truncates trailing null attributes from heap rows to reduce
the size of the row bitmap.
Applications often have wide rows in which many of the trailing column values
are null. On an insert/update, all of the trailing null columns are tracked in
the row bitmap. This can
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Qi,
* Qi Huang (huangq...@hotmail.com) wrote:
Doing it 'right' certainly isn't going to be simply taking what Neil did
and updating it, and I understand Tom's concerns about having this be
more than a hack on
Jameison Martin jameis...@yahoo.com writes:
The following patch truncates trailing null attributes from heap rows to
reduce the size of the row bitmap.
This has been discussed before, but it always seemed that the
cost-benefit ratio was exceedingly questionable. You don't get any
savings
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Christopher Browne cbbro...@gmail.com wrote:
I get the feeling that this is a somewhat-magical feature (in that
users haven't much hope of understanding in what ways the results are
deterministic) that is sufficiently magical that anyone serious
about their
On 04/17/2012 09:20 AM, Jay Levitt wrote:
Antispam is (in the large) a technically unsolvable
problem; even in the '90s, we'd see hackers start poking at our newest
countermeasures within the hour. GitHub is a giant target, and PG
probably benefits here from NOT being one.
Everyone who deals
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 02:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
1. Order the ranges on both sides by the lower bound, then upper bound.
Empty ranges can be excluded entirely.
2. Left := first
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Hmm. This sounds like something that Tom's recent work on
parameterized plans ought to have fixed, or if not, it seems closely
related.
Not really. It's still going to be a nestloop, and as such not terribly
well suited for
Qi, Hackers:
FWIW, the PostGIS folks would *really* love to have a TABLESAMPLE which
worked with geographic indexes. This would be tremendously useful for
constructing low-resolution zoom out tiles on maps and similar.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via
On tis, 2012-04-17 at 10:47 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
What's the preferred way to make it automatically tested as much as
possible? I know the buildfarm does not run installcheck-world, so if
we want it there, it'd need a bit more code on the client side. I think
it would be wise to have
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I've been hacking away on a patch to do this, and attached is something
that I think is pretty close to committable. It needs another going-over
and some new regression test cases, but it seems to work, and it fixes a
number
Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of mar abr 17 15:41:04 -0300 2012:
On tis, 2012-04-17 at 10:47 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
What's the preferred way to make it automatically tested as much as
possible? I know the buildfarm does not run installcheck-world, so if
we want it there,
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar abr 17 15:46:23 -0300 2012:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The core of the patch is in the new functions get_baserel_parampathinfo
and get_joinrel_parampathinfo, which look up or construct ParamPathInfos,
and
On 04/17/2012 02:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of mar abr 17 15:41:04 -0300 2012:
On tis, 2012-04-17 at 10:47 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
What's the preferred way to make it automatically tested as much as
possible? I know the buildfarm does not run
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
BTW, after writing the code for it I decided to remove creation of
parameterized MergeAppendPaths from allpaths.c, though there is still some
support for them elsewhere. On
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
These seems quite reasonable. These conditions make following
conditional expression.
restorePtr = replayPtr = receivePtr
But XLByteLT(recievePtr, replayPtr) this should not return true
under the
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this basically just boils down to too many patches and not
enough people. I was interested in Command Triggers from the
beginning of this
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
Hmm. StandbyMode is a local variable which cannot be accessed in
checkpointer. But WalRcvInProgress() which shows if wal receiver
is running seems to be usable to ENABLE governing progress by
What is the best way for an extension to allocate shared memory and to
access it from every backend? Or, if there is no support existing for
that, what advice do people have if I want to make that happen? I don't
need a lot (probably 1KB would do).
If this just can't be done I guess I could
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
On 16 April 2012 17:21, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
No, that's not what I was referring to. If you don't have a standby
(i.e. a single, isolated
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Well, we already made a policy decision that we weren't going to try
very hard to support merge joins inside parameterized subtrees, because
the potential growth in planning time looked nasty. My thought was that
we might
Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message of mar abr 17 16:27:21 -0300 2012:
What is the best way for an extension to allocate shared memory and to
access it from every backend? Or, if there is no support existing for
that, what advice do people have if I want to make that happen? I don't
need
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mar abr 17 16:03:50 -0300 2012:
That's one reason for that, but there are probably others in the way of
making this fully portable and automatable.
This test setup also appears to labor under the illusion that we live in
a Unix-only world. And
Greg Smith wrote:
On 04/17/2012 09:20 AM, Jay Levitt wrote:
Antispam is (in the large) a technically unsolvable
problem; even in the '90s, we'd see hackers start poking at our newest
countermeasures within the hour. GitHub is a giant target, and PG
probably benefits here from NOT being one.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
This has been discussed before, but it always seemed that the
cost-benefit ratio was exceedingly questionable. You don't get any
savings whatsoever unless you reduce the size of the null bitmap across
a MAXALIGN boundary,
Josh,
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote:
FWIW, the PostGIS folks would *really* love to have a TABLESAMPLE which
worked with geographic indexes. This would be tremendously useful for
constructing low-resolution zoom out tiles on maps and similar.
I'm familiar with the concept of 'zoom
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Personally, I find required_outer more clear. YMMV.
Perhaps. What's bothering me is the potential for confusion with outer
joins; the parameter-supplying rels are *not* necessarily
Jay Levitt jay.lev...@gmail.com writes:
Greg Smith wrote:
Tracking when and how a bug is backported to older versions is one hard part
of the problem here.
That's a great point. Both GitHub and git itself have no real concept of
releases, and can't tell you when a commit made it in.
We do
Greg Stark st...@mit.edu writes:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
This has been discussed before, but it always seemed that the
cost-benefit ratio was exceedingly questionable. You don't get any
savings whatsoever unless you reduce the size of the null
Thanks for the response.
The use-case I'm targeting is a schema that has multiple tables with ~800
columns, most of which have only the first 50 or so values set. 800 columns
would require 800 bits in a bitmap which equates to 100 bytes. With 8-byte
alignment the row bitmap would take up 104
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message:
What is the best way for an extension to allocate shared memory
and to access it from every backend?
RequestAddinShmemSpace
Perfect! That's exactly what I wanted. I see that the
pg_stat_statements
On 04/17/2012 04:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jay Levittjay.lev...@gmail.com writes:
Greg Smith wrote:
Tracking when and how a bug is backported to older versions is one hard part
of the problem here.
That's a great point. Both GitHub and git itself have no real concept of
releases, and can't
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Don't override arguments set via options with positional arguments.
A number of utility programs were rather careless about paremeters
that can be set via both an option argument and a positional
argument. This leads
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Jay Levitt jay.lev...@gmail.com wrote:
That's a great point. Both GitHub and git itself have no real concept of
releases, and can't tell you when a commit made it in.
Those factors likely play together in this.
Git is a tool, not a workflow, and intentionally
On 04/17/2012 07:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote:
Don't override arguments set via options with positional arguments.
A number of utility programs were rather careless about paremeters
that can be set via both an option
On 04/17/2012 07:19 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 04/17/2012 07:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net
wrote:
Don't override arguments set via options with positional arguments.
A number of utility programs were rather careless about
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Christopher Browne cbbro...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there may be cases where the quality of the sample isn't
terribly important, it just needs to be reasonable.
I browsed an article on the SYSTEM/BERNOULLI representations; they
both amount to simple picks of
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
That's probably one reason people aren't jumping on this. Because
there is no tracker out there that people actually *like*...
I think this is a point worth serious thought. The bug trackers I've
used have been mostly
Hmm. StandbyMode is a local variable which cannot be accessed in
checkpointer. But WalRcvInProgress() which shows if wal receiver
is running seems to be usable to ENABLE governing progress by
checkpoint_segments.
Even when walreceiver is not running and WAL files are read from the
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
That's probably one reason people aren't jumping on this. Because
there is no tracker out there that people actually *like*...
I think this is a point worth serious thought.
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
You know, I could have sworn it was discussed, but when I look back I
see it wasn't. I must have been remembering the recent logging protocol bug.
I'll revert it if people want, although I still think it's a bug.
I think we discussed it to the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
But for any
given ABC there are also people who will tell you that it's got
significant problems. We don't need to change anything to get a
system that's got significant problems; we already have one.
Let's not let perfect be the enemy of
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 02:45:09 +0300
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Gsoc2012 idea, tablesample
From: a...@cybertec.at
To: cbbro...@gmail.com
CC: sfr...@snowman.net; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Christopher Browne cbbro...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, there may
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com wrote:
Let's not let perfect be the enemy of good. In this case, *anything*
that actually tracks bugs (and they are all quite good at that,
if nothing else) is an improvement over what we have now, and thus,
quite good. :)
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I can see both sides of this. I agree that the old behavior is buggy,
but what I imagine Robert is worried about is scripts that accidentally
work okay today and would stop working once the PG programs are fixed
to complain
On 04/17/2012 10:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Indeed. The only one I've got extensive experience with is Bugzilla
(because Red Hat uses it) and I do cordially hate it. At least some
of that is due to bureaucratic practices RH has evolved, like cloning
bugs N times for N affected releases, but I
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Rather than talk about adopting one of the available torture devices,
I'd happily consider the simplest thing possible that would be useful
here instead. Here's my proposed tiny tracker:
Wasn't Jay just muttering about writing your own bug tracker
On 04/17/2012 11:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
At the same time, I think we'd likely be a lot better off squirting this
data into bugzilla or another standard tracker, instead of building our
own infrastructure.
Perhaps. It just struck me that a lot of the custom bits needed here
regardless could
On 18 April 2012 13:44, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
... I think you'll find a lot of that data could be mined out of our
historical commit logs already. I know I make a practice of mentioning
bug # whenever there is a relevant bug number, and I think other
committers do too. It
Jameison Martin jameis...@yahoo.com writes:
The use-case I'm targeting is a schema that has multiple tables with ~800
columns, most of which have only the first 50 or so values set. 800 columns
would require 800 bits in a bitmap which equates to 100 bytes. With 8-byte
alignment the row
Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com writes:
I might still be misunderstanding, but I think what you are suggesting
is that in the loop in make_rels_by_clause_joins, if we find that the
old_rel doesn't have a join clause/restriction with the current
other_rel, we check to see whether other_rel
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
... Only one side really needs the mark and restore logic, but it was easier
to write the pseudocode in a symmetrical way (except step 7).
I'm actually not sure these are equivalent
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 04:30, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
That's probably one reason people aren't jumping on this. Because
there is no tracker out there that people
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 19:59, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 04/17/2012 09:20 AM, Jay Levitt wrote:
Let's pick a real example from the last week of my life, where having a bug
tracker would have helped me out. This appears in a log:
ERROR: missing chunk number 0 for toast value
I'm afraid I'm still not following you very well. Perhaps you could
submit a proposed patch?
Before that can you please explain in little more detail (if possible with
small example) about the idea you have told in original mail : is there any
join clause that both these relations participate
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 05:44, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Rather than talk about adopting one of the available torture devices,
I'd happily consider the simplest thing possible that would be useful
here instead. Here's my proposed tiny tracker:
Regarding the schema: I'm afraid the schema cannot be changed at this point,
though I appreciate
the suggestions.
Regarding an INSERT performance test, what kind of table shape would you like
me to exercise?
The patch as submitted may actually shave some cycles off of the insertion of
rows
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 04:30, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
So when I read Andrew's recent suggestion that we use
Bugzilla, my immediate reaction was egad, can't we do better?.
Maybe we can't :-(.
Personally, I'd say we *already* do better
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 07:52, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 04:30, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
So when I read Andrew's recent suggestion that we use
Bugzilla, my immediate reaction was egad, can't we do better?.
91 matches
Mail list logo
