Re: [HACKERS] Visual Studio 2012 RC

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 07:53:51AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > The only matter still requiring attention is a fix for IsoLocaleName(). Following off-list coordination with Brar, I went about finishing up this patch. The above problem proved deeper than expected. For Windows Vista, Microsoft made

Re: [HACKERS] dynamic SQL - possible performance regression in 9.2

On 12/28/12 5:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > As it happens, I just spent a lot of time today narrowing down yet > another report of a regression in 9.2, when running DBT-2: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2012-11/msg7.php. > It looks like that is also caused by the pla

Re: [HACKERS] fix bgworkers in EXEC_BACKEND

Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 27.12.2012 22:46, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > > >>Might be cleaner to directly assign the correct value to MaxBackends > >>above, ie. "MaxBackends = MaxConnections + newval + 1 + > >>GetNumShmemAttachedBgworkers()". With a comment to remind

[HACKERS] unexpected query result on hot standby server

Hello I am trying simulate hotstandby conflicts on 9.3, but without success. I have a basic hot standby configuration - on slave just "hot_standby = on", "standby_mode = on" and "primary_conninfo" hot standby node works well - but I would to generate conflict I create table bubu on master and

Re: [HACKERS] Submission Review: User control over psql error stream

Hi Allastair, On 12/28/2012 02:33:03 PM, Alastair Turner wrote: > Sorry for the slow reply ... Such is life. > The discussion needs to be a little broader than stdout and stderr, > there are currently three output streams from psql: > - stdout - prompts, not tabular output such as the results

[HACKERS] Re: proposal: a width specification for s specifier (format function), fix behave when positional and ordered placeholders are used

Hello 2012/12/31 Stephen Frost : > Pavel, > > * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> A result from ours previous talk was a completely disabling mixing >> positional and ordered placeholders - like is requested by man and gcc >> raises warnings there. >> >> But mixing is not explicitl

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: optimized DROP of multiple tables within a transaction

On 30.12.2012 04:03, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> Attached is a patch with fixed handling of temporary relations. I've >> chosen to keep the logic in DropRelFileNodeAllBuffers and rather do a >> local copy without the local relations. > > This looks

Re: [HACKERS] Behaviour of bgworker with SIGHUP

On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 12:54 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Guillaume Lelarge wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 11:03 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > I think this (have a config option, and have SIGHUP work as expected) > > > would be useful to demo in worker_spi, if you care to submit a patch.

Re: [HACKERS] Behaviour of bgworker with SIGHUP

Guillaume Lelarge wrote: > On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 11:03 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > I think this (have a config option, and have SIGHUP work as expected) > > would be useful to demo in worker_spi, if you care to submit a patch. > > Yeah, I would love too. Reading the code of worker_spi, we co

Re: [HACKERS] Behaviour of bgworker with SIGHUP

On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 11:03 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Guillaume Lelarge wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Today, I tried to make fun with the new background worker processes in > > 9.3, but I found something disturbing, and need help to go further. > > Thanks. > > > Is it the work of the function (poi

Re: [HACKERS] Making view dump/restore safe at the column-alias level

Greg Stark writes: > I do wonder whether the SQL standard will do something obtuse enough > that that's the only option for a large swathe of queries. Or is that > the case already? The query syntax you're using here, is it standard > SQL? Is it widely supported? Yeah, it's standard --- there's n

Re: [HACKERS] Making view dump/restore safe at the column-alias level

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > On the whole I think this is a "must fix" bug, so we don't have a lot of > choice, unless someone has a proposal for a different and more compact > way of solving the problem. The only more compact way of handling things that I can see is adding

Re: [HACKERS] Behaviour of bgworker with SIGHUP

Guillaume Lelarge wrote: > Hi, > > Today, I tried to make fun with the new background worker processes in > 9.3, but I found something disturbing, and need help to go further. Thanks. > Is it the work of the function (pointed by bgw_sighup) to get the new > config values from the postmaster? and

[HACKERS] Re: proposal: a width specification for s specifier (format function), fix behave when positional and ordered placeholders are used

2012/12/31 Stephen Frost : > Pavel, > > * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> A result from ours previous talk was a completely disabling mixing >> positional and ordered placeholders - like is requested by man and gcc >> raises warnings there. >> >> But mixing is not explicitly disal

[HACKERS] Re: proposal: a width specification for s specifier (format function), fix behave when positional and ordered placeholders are used

Pavel, * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote: > A result from ours previous talk was a completely disabling mixing > positional and ordered placeholders - like is requested by man and gcc > raises warnings there. > > But mixing is not explicitly disallowed in doc, and mixing was tested

Re: [HACKERS] Review of Row Level Security

On 23 December 2012 18:49, Simon Riggs wrote: > Anyway, hope you can make call on 28th so we can discuss this and > agree a way forwards you're happy with. Stephen, KaiGai and myself met by phone on 28th to discuss. 1. The actual default is not that important to any of us. We could go either wa