On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 27 July 2012 16:39, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> Can you suggest a benchmark that will usefully exercise this patch?
>>
>> I think the given sizes below work on most 64 bit machines.
>
> My apologies for not getting around to taking a look at
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
> HEAD
>
> number of transactions actually processed: 3439971
> tps = 57331.891602 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 57340.932324 (excluding connections establishing)
> pg_stat_lwlocks patch (reporting disabled)
> =
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 7:00 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Does Debian they create a self-signed certificate? If so, count me as
> unimpressed. I'd argue that's worse than doing nothing. Here's what the docs
> say (rightly) about such certificates:
Debian will give you a self signed certificate by
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> 1. Salt length. Greg Stark calculated the odds of salt collisions here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-08/msg01540.php. It's not
> too bad as it is, and as Greg pointed out, if you can eavesdrop it's likely
> you ca
Thanks for the review.
2012/10/14 8:55, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Fujii Masao mailto:masao.fu...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Fujii Masao mailto:masao.fu...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 11:34 PM, Satoshi Nagayasu
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Fujii Masao
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 11:34 PM, Satoshi Nagayasu
> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> 2012/10/13 23:05, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I have fixed my previous patch for p
On Sat, October 13, 2012 19:26, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2012/10/13 Shigeru HANADA :
>> After you determine whether it's ok or unnecessary, I'll mark this patch as
>> "Ready for committer".
>>
>
I found this behaviour which I think must count as a bug.
\gset doesn't allow more \\-separated lines beh
Based on a previous thread
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-10/msg00131.php) I
have put together a first attempt of a pg_ping utility. I am attaching
two patches. One for the executable and one for the docs.
I would also like to make a regression tests and translations, but
wante
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 11:34 PM, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2012/10/13 23:05, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have fixed my previous patch for pg_stat_lwlocks view, and
>>> as Josh commented, it now supports local and
On 10/13/12 3:15 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
FWIW, it's definitely an issue of not being able to push down past the GROUP BY:
I take that back... GROUP BY doesn't matter. It's an issue of having the EXISTS
in the inner query. I realize the examples have gotten a bit silly, but this
seems to break it
Jim Nasby writes:
> FWIW, it's definitely an issue of not being able to push down past the GROUP
> BY:
I think it's not that so much as the EXISTS inside a LEFT JOIN.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make chang
> Ah. Okay, maybe we can agree that that wasn't a good idea.
Oh, I'd say there's no question it was a mistake. We just didn't have the data
at the time to realize it.
> I don't really see that we need to bend over backwards to exactly
> match
> some data points that you made up out of thin ai
Simon,
> I think its sad we can't even attempt a technical conversation
> without
> you making snide ad hominem attacks that aren't even close to being
> true on a personal level, nor accurate in a technical sense.
I would prefer it if you actually addressed my substantive arguments, which, so
f
On 10/13/12 2:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby writes:
Just upgraded to 8.4 (I know, I know…) and ran across this. Unfortunately I
have no way to test this on 9.x, so I don't know if it's been fixed or not. I'm
hoping that someone *cough*Tom*cough* would quickly recognize whether this push
i
Joshua Berkus writes:
> I've been going over the notes and email archives from the period
> where Matt O'Connor and I arrived at the current settings. All of our
> testing was devoted to autovacuum, not autoanalyze.
> Our mistake was assuming that the same formula which worked well for
> vacuum w
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Joshua Berkus wrote:
>
> So, problem #1 is coming up with a mathematical formula. My initial target
> values are in terms of # of rows in the table vs. # of writes before analyze
> is triggered:
>
> 1 : 3
> 10 : 5
> 100 : 10
> 1000 : 100
> 10 : 2000
> 1
On 10/13/12 2:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, your workaround looks wrong --- you need to constrain the outside
of the left join not the inside, no?
Ugh, yes, you're correct. :(
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect j...@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://j
> For my part, while that's certainly an interesting idea, it's far
> more
> complicated than even providing GUCs and the idea is to make PG just
> "do
> it right", not to offer the user more ways to get it wrong...
Yes, please let's not replace the existing too-simplistic knobs with giant
compl
Jim Nasby writes:
> Just upgraded to 8.4 (I know, I know
) and ran across this. Unfortunately I
> have no way to test this on 9.x, so I don't know if it's been fixed or not.
> I'm hoping that someone *cough*Tom*cough* would quickly recognize whether
> this push into subquery issue has been fixe
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Phil Sorber writes:
>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Also, do we want to centralize the definition of pg_strdup() in /port,
>>> or leave each module to define it on its own?
>
>> +1 for a centralized definition.
>
> T
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 09:10:05PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> >> > I think the idea of having the short descriptions in SQL and longer ones
>> >> > in SGML is not maintainable. One idea would be to clip the SQL
>> >> > description to b
Phil Sorber writes:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Also, do we want to centralize the definition of pg_strdup() in /port,
>> or leave each module to define it on its own?
> +1 for a centralized definition.
The difficulty with a centralized definition is that it's not
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 09:10:05PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> > I think the idea of having the short descriptions in SQL and longer ones
> >> > in SGML is not maintainable. One idea would be to clip the SQL
> >> > description to be no longer than a specified number of characters, with
> >>
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 07:03:49AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 01:29:21PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > There was a thread in January of 2012 where we discussed the idea of
>> > pulling system table/column name desc
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 09:03:37PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 04:33:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Bruce Momjian writes:
>> > > A while ago I noticed that in some places we strdup/pg_strdup() optarg
>> > > strin
On 12 October 2012 20:27, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I understand to your request, but I don't thing so this request is
> 100% valid. Check violation is good example. Constraint names are
> "optional" in PostgreSQL - so we cannot require constraint_name. One
> from first prototypes I used generated na
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 11:34 PM, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2012/10/13 23:05, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have fixed my previous patch for pg_stat_lwlocks view, and
>> as Josh commented, it now supports local and global (shared)
>> statistics in the same system view.
>
> Sor
Thanks for your reviews.
2012/10/10 Alvaro Herrera :
> Kohei KaiGai escribió:
>> The attached patch adds argument of OAT_POST_CREATE hook;
>> to inform extensions type of the context of this object creation. It allows
>> extensions to know whether the new object is indirectly created apart
>> from
2012/10/13 Shigeru HANADA :
> Hi Pavel,
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
>>
>> * merge Shigeru's doc patch
>> * rename psql regression test from "psql" to "psql_cmd"
>
>
> Those changes seem good.
>
> Besides, I found an error message which doesn't end with '¥n' in co
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 11.10.2012 13:17, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>
>>> How does this look now?
>>
>>
>> The Patch is fine and test results are also fine.
>
>
> Ok, thanks. Committed.
I found one typo. The attached patch fixes that typo.
ISTM you need to upd
Just upgraded to 8.4 (I know, I know…) and ran across this. Unfortunately I
have no way to test this on 9.x, so I don't know if it's been fixed or not. I'm
hoping that someone *cough*Tom*cough* would quickly recognize whether this push
into subquery issue has been fixed or not, so I haven't incl
* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote:
> Does Debian they create a self-signed certificate? If so, count me
> as unimpressed. I'd argue that's worse than doing nothing. Here's
> what the docs say (rightly) about such certificates:
Self-signed certificates do provide for in-transit encryptio
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 07:03:49AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 01:29:21PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > There was a thread in January of 2012 where we discussed the idea of
> > pulling system table/column name descriptions from the SGML docs and
> > creating SQL comments fo
Hi,
One of my colleagues, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais, found a weird
behaviour of the "-c" command line option in the pg_restore tool while
doing a training. Here is the following steps he followed:
createdb foo
pg_dump -Fc foo > foo.dump
createdb bar
pg_restore -c -d bar foo.dump
bar contains
Hi,
2012/10/13 23:05, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have fixed my previous patch for pg_stat_lwlocks view, and
> as Josh commented, it now supports local and global (shared)
> statistics in the same system view.
Sorry, I found my mistakes. New fixed one is attached to this mail.
Regar
Hi all,
I have fixed my previous patch for pg_stat_lwlocks view, and
as Josh commented, it now supports local and global (shared)
statistics in the same system view.
Local statistics means the counters are only effective in the
same session, and shared ones means the counters are shared within
th
On 10/13/2012 01:55 AM, Darren Duncan wrote:
John R Pierce wrote:
On 10/12/12 9:00 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
And now we're migrating to Red Hat for the production launch, using
the http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/redhat/ packages for
Postgres 9.1, and these do *not* include the SSL.
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 01:29:21PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> There was a thread in January of 2012 where we discussed the idea of
> pulling system table/column name descriptions from the SGML docs and
> creating SQL comments for them:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012
38 matches
Mail list logo
