On 20.02.2013 13:39, pierpaolo.cincilla wrote:
Thank you Heikki for your reply. As you suggest, I will explain better what
I'm trying to accomplish.
What I'm writing a ditributed two-phase-commit termination protocol that
work in this manner:
1) Each site has a replica of the database. A site
Greg Stark st...@mit.edu writes:
The way I was thinking about it, whatever the command is named, you
might be able to tell the database to drop the storage associated with
the view but that would make the view invalid until it was refreshed.
It wouldn't make it appear to be empty.
Actually,
On 21.02.2013 02:59, Daniel Farina wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Simon Riggssi...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 15 February 2013 17:07, Heikki Linnakangashlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Unfortunately in HEAD, xxx.done file is not created when restoring
archived
file because of absence
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 21.02.2013 02:59, Daniel Farina wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Simon Riggssi...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 15 February 2013 17:07, Heikki Linnakangashlinnakan...@vmware.com
wrote:
Unfortunately
On 2013-02-21 04:14:09 +, Greg Stark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
More generally, I would consider the invalidation of a materialized view
a DDL command, whereas truncating a table is a DML command.
That's not entirely true. From the
Shigeru Hanada shigeru.han...@gmail.com writes:
[ postgres_fdw.v5.patch ]
Applied with a lot of revisions.
There are still a number of loose ends and things that need to be
discussed:
I'm not at all happy with the planner support functions --- as designed,
that code is basically incapable of
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Joachim Wieland j...@mcknight.de wrote:
So given the above, I think it's possible to come up with benchmarks
that prove whatever you want to prove :-)
Yeah. :-(
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
More generally, I would consider the invalidation of a materialized view
a DDL command, whereas truncating a table is a DML command.
That's not entirely
On 2/20/13 5:03 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2/20/13 2:30 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Are there TRUNCATE triggers on materialized views?
No. Nor SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, or DELETE triggers. You can't
create a trigger of any type on a materialized view.
On 2/20/13 11:14 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
That's not entirely true. From the database's point of view, TRUNCATE
is in many ways actually DDL.
Whether something is DDL or DML or a read operation (query) is not an
implementation detail, it's a user-exposed category. Since TRUNCATE is
logically
On 15.02.2013 15:49, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Attached is a patch for git master. The basic idea is to split
InArchiveRecovery into two variables, InArchiveRecovery and
ArchiveRecoveryRequested. ArchiveRecoveryRequested is set when
recovery.conf exists. But if we don't know how far we need to
On Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:46 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 20.02.2013 11:42, Amit Kapila wrote:
The patch for providing connection string for pg_basebackup,
pg_receivexlog, pg_dump and pg_dumpall is attached with this mail.
Thanks. Now that I look at this patch, I realize that we
Tom Lane wrote:
Applied with a lot of revisions.
I am thrilled.
As I mentioned earlier, I think it would be better to force the remote
session's search_path setting to just pg_catalog and then reduce the
amount of explicit schema naming in the queries --- any opinions about
that?
I think
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2/20/13 11:14 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
That's not entirely true. From the database's point of view,
TRUNCATE is in many ways actually DDL.
Whether something is DDL or DML or a read operation (query) is
not an implementation detail, it's a user-exposed
On 2013-02-21 14:23:35 +, Albe Laurenz wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Another thing I was wondering about, but did not change, is that if we're
having the remote transaction inherit the local transaction's isolation
level, shouldn't it inherit the READ ONLY property as well?
That seems to me
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Greg Stark st...@mit.edu writes:
The way I was thinking about it, whatever the command is named, you
might be able to tell the database to drop the storage associated with
the view but that would make the view invalid until it was refreshed.
It wouldn't make
Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
I actually don't really dislike using TRUNCATE for this
command. I was more asking about whether this meant people were
thinking of the view as a thing where you could control the data
in it by hand and could have the view be empty rather than just
not valid.
Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
As I mentioned earlier, I think it would be better to force the remote
session's search_path setting to just pg_catalog and then reduce the
amount of explicit schema naming in the queries --- any opinions about
that?
I think that
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2013-02-21 14:23:35 +, Albe Laurenz wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Another thing I was wondering about, but did not change, is that if we're
having the remote transaction inherit the local transaction's isolation
level, shouldn't it inherit the READ
On 2013-02-21 09:58:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2013-02-21 14:23:35 +, Albe Laurenz wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Another thing I was wondering about, but did not change, is that if we're
having the remote transaction inherit the local
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
I'll need more time to ponder your other points, but...
You don't need a new command or key word for this. How about
ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW DISCARD?
I don't like this because we don't have ALTER TABLE REINDEX. But
the fact that DISCARD is a keyword
On 21.02.2013 16:38, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Greg Starkst...@mit.edu writes:
The way I was thinking about it, whatever the command is named, you
might be able to tell the database to drop the storage associated with
the view but that would make the view
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
giving an error so its an easy to find distinction to a normal
table seems like a good idea.
I'm not sure I understood your concerns entirely, but wonder
whether this helps?:
test=# \d
List of relations
Schema | Name | Type
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
That being the case, lumping them as being the same operation
feels like the wrong thing, and so we should choose a different
name for the MV operation.
There is currently no truncation of MV data without rendering
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 21.02.2013 16:38, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Greg Starkst...@mit.edu writes:
The way I was thinking about it, whatever the command is named, you
might be able to tell the database to drop the storage
On 2013-02-21 07:10:09 -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
giving an error so its an easy to find distinction to a normal
table seems like a good idea.
I'm not sure I understood your concerns entirely, but wonder
whether this helps?:
To explain it a
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2013-02-21 09:58:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
How exactly would it do that via an FDW? Surely if the user tries to
execute INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE against a foreign table, the command would
get rejected in a read-only transaction, long before we even
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
That being the case, lumping them as being the same
operation feels like the wrong thing, and so we should choose a
different name for the MV operation.
There is currently no
On 2013-02-21 10:21:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2013-02-21 09:58:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
How exactly would it do that via an FDW? Surely if the user tries to
execute INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE against a foreign table, the command would
get
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Sure, it might fail if you use READ ONLY explicitly. Or the code might
check it. The point is that one might not have choice about the READ
ONLY state of the local transaction if its a HS standby as all
transactions are READ ONLY there.
[ shrug...
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I assume that at some point matviews will get (auto-)updateable,
just as normal views recently got.
I'm dubious about that. Every use case I've seen for MVs involves
aggregation, although they are a generalized feature, so that won't
always be true.
Tom Lane wrote:
I think that the question what to push down is a different question
from checking column data types, because there we can rely on the
type input functions to reject bad values.
Unfortunately, that's a very myopic view of the situation: there
are many cases where datatype
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Peter claimed upthread that REFRESH is a subcommand of ALTER
MATERIALIZE VIEW
It's not, nor do I think it should be.
Oh, never mind then.
and that this operation should be another one. That sounds
pretty
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyways, as to overloading in general, well, SQL is heavily
overloaded. We don't have int_max, float_max, etc. and it would be
usability
Hello
here is patch
where it should be pushed - 9.3 or 9.4 ?
I vote 9.3 - I know a users, that should to do workarounds (he should
not to use domains) now, so early is better. And this patch is one
line size patch
Regards
Pavel
2013/2/16 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
2013/2/16
pink Peter as xml feature commiter.
Regards
Pavel
2013/2/21 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
Hello
here is patch
where it should be pushed - 9.3 or 9.4 ?
I vote 9.3 - I know a users, that should to do workarounds (he should
not to use domains) now, so early is better. And this
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure: but that's another straw man: abuse of + operator is case of
combining arbitrarily different behaviors (concatenation and
arithmetic aggregation) into uniform syntax. This is bad, but a
different thing. The
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I agree with Merlin and Joachim - if we have the call in one place, we
should have it in both.
We might want to assess whether we even want to
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Are you talking about the patch to avoid restored WAL segments from being
re-archived (commit 6f4b8a4f4f7a2d683ff79ab59d3693714b965e3d), or the bug
that that unarchived WALs were deleted after crash (commit
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I have added some protections so that these do not fire on undesirable
events (such as dropping an event trigger); also event triggers and
other object types are filtered out of pg_dropped_objects, in case
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Does the kernel really read a data block from disk into memory in
order to immediately overwrite it? I would have thought it would
optimize that away, at least if the writes are sized and aligned to
512 or 1024 bytes
Just a heads up: I intend to push this shortly, and after it has seen
some BF activity, pg_xlogdump as well.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services
*** a/src/backend/Makefile
--- b/src/backend/Makefile
***
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
There's also code to re-obtain the list of objects to drop after the
event trigger functions have run; the second list is compared to the
first one, and if they differ, an error is raised.
This is definitely an
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Ian Lawrence Barwick
barw...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure if this is a documentation or hackers issue, but the
documentation page for contrib module xml2 refers to PostgreSQL 8.4 in the
future tense:
It is planned that this module will be removed in
Robert Haas escribió:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I have added some protections so that these do not fire on undesirable
events (such as dropping an event trigger); also event triggers and
other object types are filtered out of
Robert Haas escribió:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
There's also code to re-obtain the list of objects to drop after the
event trigger functions have run; the second list is compared to the
first one, and if they differ, an error is raised.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Ian Lawrence Barwick
barw...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure if this is a documentation or hackers issue, but the
documentation page for contrib module xml2 refers to PostgreSQL 8.4 in the
On 02/21/2013 12:56 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Ian Lawrence Barwick
barw...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure if this is a documentation or hackers issue, but the
documentation page for
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure: but that's another straw man: abuse of + operator is case of
combining arbitrarily different behaviors (concatenation and
arithmetic
2013/2/20 Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
2013/1/14 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Well, fine, but then it should fix both of them and remove
minimal_error_message altogether. I would however suggest
On 2/21/13 9:25 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2/20/13 11:14 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
That's not entirely true. From the database's point of view,
TRUNCATE is in many ways actually DDL.
Whether something is DDL or DML or a read operation (query) is
not an
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com writes:
What did you think of the idea of something like DISCARD
MATERIALIZED VIEW DATA as a new statment? Or maybe RESET
MATERIALIZED VIEW?
I could live with either DISCARD or RESET.
I figured this was worth a pass
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
It doesn't. That was one of the more contentious points in the
earlier bikeshedding phases. Some felt that throwing away the
contents was a form of making the MV out of date and as such
didn't require any special
Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
It doesn't. That was one of the more contentious points in the
earlier bikeshedding phases. Some felt that throwing away the
contents was a form of making the MV out of date and as such
didn't require any special
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com
wrote:
On 19.02.2013 20:07, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
I would like to propose implement a way to track creation times to
database
objects. This was discussed before in this thread [1].
This was discussed
2013/2/22 Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net:
On 02/21/2013 12:56 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Ian Lawrence Barwick
barw...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure if this is a documentation
On 2013-02-21 14:11:10 -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com writes:
What did you think of the idea of something like DISCARD
MATERIALIZED VIEW DATA as a new statment? Or maybe RESET
MATERIALIZED VIEW?
I could live with
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 15.02.2013 15:49, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Attached is a patch for git master. The basic idea is to split
InArchiveRecovery into two variables, InArchiveRecovery and
ArchiveRecoveryRequested.
Hi all,
While testing a bit this feature, I noticed that use_remote_explain is
available in the list of options for FOREIGN TABLE and SERVER but this is
not specified in the docs:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/postgres-fdw.html
postgres=# CREATE FOREIGN TABLE foo (a int, b int)
While building 9.2.3 on OS X 10.8.2 today:
checking ossp/uuid.h usability... no
checking ossp/uuid.h presence... yes
configure: WARNING: ossp/uuid.h: present but cannot be compiled
configure: WARNING: ossp/uuid.h: check for missing prerequisite headers?
configure: WARNING: ossp/uuid.h: see
60 matches
Mail list logo
