Re: [HACKERS] build farm machine using mixed results

2012-09-07 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 09/07/2012 10:46 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 09/07/2012 09:55 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 09/07/2012 08:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: Well, it looks like it's always failing on ecpg, with preproc.h not being made in the right order. Here is the last bit of a make log s

Re: [HACKERS] build farm machine using mixed results

2012-09-07 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 09/07/2012 09:55 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 09/07/2012 08:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: Well, it looks like it's always failing on ecpg, with preproc.h not being made in the right order. Here is the last bit of a make log starting from when it starts on ecpg. This is pre

Re: [HACKERS] build farm machine using mixed results

2012-09-07 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 09/07/2012 08:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: Well, it looks like it's always failing on ecpg, with preproc.h not being made in the right order. Here is the last bit of a make log starting from when it starts on ecpg. This is pretty repeatable. Hmph. I can't reproduce it at

Re: [HACKERS] Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol

2012-09-07 Thread Gurjeet Singh
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 09/05/2012 10:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> >> The people who would be interested in this are currently using something >> like SQLite within a single application program. >> > > Exactly. I think it's worth stating that this has a HUGE

Re: [HACKERS] build farm machine using mixed results

2012-09-07 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan writes: > Well, it looks like it's always failing on ecpg, with preproc.h not > being made in the right order. Here is the last bit of a make log > starting from when it starts on ecpg. This is pretty repeatable. Hmph. I can't reproduce it at all on my Fedora 16 box. What versi

Re: [HACKERS] build farm machine using mixed results

2012-09-07 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 09/04/2012 08:51 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 09/04/2012 08:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: Frankly, I have had enough failures of parallel make that I think doing this would generate a significant number of non-repeatable failures (I had one just the other day that took thr

Re: [HACKERS] Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol

2012-09-07 Thread Jim Nasby
On 9/2/12 7:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote: 4. As coded, the backend assumes the incoming pipe is on its FD 0 and the outgoing pipe is on its FD 1. This made the command line simple but I'm having second thoughts about it: if anything inside the backend tries to read stdin or write stdout, unpleasant thi

Re: [HACKERS] Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol

2012-09-07 Thread Andres Freund
On Friday, September 07, 2012 11:21:00 PM Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 17:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> In general I think the selling point for such a feature would be "no > >> administrative hassles", and I believe that has

Re: [HACKERS] Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol

2012-09-07 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 17:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> In general I think the selling point for such a feature would be "no >> administrative hassles", and I believe that has to go not only for the >> end-user experience but also for the applicat

Re: [HACKERS] Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol

2012-09-07 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas writes: > On 07.09.2012 10:49, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm a bit tempted though to pull out and apply the portions of the >> patch that replace libpq's assorted ad-hoc closesocket() calls with >> a centralized pqDropConnection routine. I think that's probably a good >> idea independ

Re: [HACKERS] Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol

2012-09-07 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas writes: > It's worth noting that now that libpq constructs the command line to > execute "postgres --child= -D ", we'll be stuck with that set > of arguments forever, because libpq needs to be able to talk to > different versions. Or at least we'd need to teach libpq to check

Re: [HACKERS] Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol

2012-09-07 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 07.09.2012 10:49, Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas writes: Would socketpair(2) be simpler? Attached is a revised version of the patch that uses socketpair(2). This is definitely a lot less invasive --- the backend side of the patch, in particular, is far shorter, and there are fewer port

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

2012-09-07 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of vie sep 07 13:50:44 -0300 2012: > There is a filter mechanism used in detecting is a run is needed, and in > modern versions of the client (Release 4.7, one version later than > guaibasaurus is currently using) it lets you have both include and > exclud

Re: [HACKERS] txid failed epoch increment, again, aka 6291

2012-09-07 Thread Daniel Farina
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 01:37:57AM -0700, Daniel Farina wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Noah Misch wrote: >> > On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 09:46:58AM -0700, Daniel Farina wrote: >> >> I might try to find the segments leading up to the over

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #7521: Cannot disable WAL log while using pg_dump

2012-09-07 Thread Gezeala M . Bacuño II
adding pgsql-bugs list in case OP posts back. On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > (Adding -hackers. Did not realize it got dropped) > > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Gezeala M. Bacuño II > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Pavan Deolasee >> wrote: >> > >> > >>

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #7521: Cannot disable WAL log while using pg_dump

2012-09-07 Thread Pavan Deolasee
(Adding -hackers. Did not realize it got dropped) On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Gezeala M. Bacuño II wrote: > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Pavan Deolasee > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Marie Bacuno II > wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Sep 7, 2012, at 2:19, Pavan Deolasee >

Re: [HACKERS] improving python3 regression test setup

2012-09-07 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/6/12 8:56 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of jue sep 06 21:33:33 -0300 2012: >> I have developed a patch to make the python3 regression test setup a bit >> simpler. Currently, we are making mangled copies of >> plpython/{expected,sql} to plpython/python3/{

Re: [HACKERS] Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol

2012-09-07 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas writes: > Would socketpair(2) be simpler? Attached is a revised version of the patch that uses socketpair(2). This is definitely a lot less invasive --- the backend side of the patch, in particular, is far shorter, and there are fewer portability hazards since we're not trying

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

2012-09-07 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 09/07/2012 09:57 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: A complete run of this process takes less than 15 minutes. And as I have pointed out elsewhere that could be reduced substantially by skipping certain steps. It's as simple as changing the com

Re: [HACKERS] Issue observed in cascade standby setup and analysis for same

2012-09-07 Thread Amit Kapila
On Thursday, September 06, 2012 9:58 PM Josh Berkus wrote: On 9/6/12 7:06 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> 1.Set up postgresql-9.2beta2 on all hosts. > Did you retest this with 9.2rc1? Beta2 was a while ago Tested in 9.2rc1, the problem occurs incase I use database and backup of 9.2 Be

Re: [HACKERS] Draft release notes complete

2012-09-07 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 09/05/2012 06:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> >> On 8/29/12 11:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Why does this need to be tied into the build farm? Someone can surely set up a script that just runs the docs build at e

Re: [HACKERS] txid failed epoch increment, again, aka 6291

2012-09-07 Thread Noah Misch
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 01:37:57AM -0700, Daniel Farina wrote: > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 09:46:58AM -0700, Daniel Farina wrote: > >> I might try to find the segments leading up to the overflow point and > >> try xlogdumping them to see what we

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump transaction's read-only mode

2012-09-07 Thread Kevin Grittner
Pavan Deolasee wrote: > I'm looking at the following code in pg_dump.c > > /* >* Start transaction-snapshot mode transaction to dump >* consistent data. >*/ > ExecuteSqlStatement(fout, "BEGIN"); > if (fout->remoteVersion >= 90100) > { > if (serializable_deferrable) >

Re: [HACKERS] txid failed epoch increment, again, aka 6291

2012-09-07 Thread Daniel Farina
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 09:46:58AM -0700, Daniel Farina wrote: >> I might try to find the segments leading up to the overflow point and >> try xlogdumping them to see what we can see. > > That would be helpful to see. > > Just to grasp at yet-fli