On 2013-06-26 20:07:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't see how we could trigger the conditions for EINPROGRESS on
windows that msdn lists, but since we need it on unixoid systems and its
valid to treat the connect as partiall successfull on windows, there
seems little benefit in dropping
Latest patch looks good to me.
Regards,
Rushabh
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello
updated patch with some basic doc
Regards
Pavel
2013/6/26 Rushabh Lathia rushabh.lat...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Pavel
On 2013-06-26 21:18:49 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
TBH, I've always been annoyed that pg_filedump is GPL and so there's no
way for us to just ship it in contrib. (That stems from Red Hat
corporate policy of a dozen years
On Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:26 AM Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-06-27 11:16:25 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 10:19 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Amit Kapila
amit.kap...@huawei.com
One more use case for which this utility was done is
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Why not do this from a function/background worker in the backend where
you can go via the buffer manager to avoid torn pages et al. If you use
a buffer strategy the cache poisoning et al should be controlleable.
I
On 2013-06-26 23:42:55 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Why not do this from a function/background worker in the backend where
you can go via the buffer manager to avoid torn pages et al. If you use
a buffer
Dear Febien
(2013/06/27 14:39), Fabien COELHO wrote:
If I show a latency at full load, that would be nclients/tps, not 1/tps.
However, I'm hoping to pass the throttling patch to pgbench, in which case the
latency to show is a little bit different because the nclients/tps would
include sleep
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
I'm not sure what the resolution of Alvaro's concern was, so I left the
flag reporting the same as the previous patch.
Alvaro's concern was that the new flags added (those added by the
foreign key locks patch) do something
Guys,
Single core CPU's are dying for Home users, my cellular has 4 cores.
Today's standard is minimum 4 cores per CPU and tomorrow who knows?
Parallelization sometimes is only one solution for heavy nightly jobs.
From the other hand parallelization is very tricky and unpredictable
when it comes
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
I'm not sure what the resolution of Alvaro's concern was, so I left the
flag reporting the same as the previous patch.
Alvaro's concern was that the new flags added (those added by the
foreign key locks patch) do
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com
wrote:
If I don't miss something, the requirement for the CONCURRENTLY option
is to
allow simple SELECT reader to read the matview concurrently
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com wrote:
I spent a few hours to review the patch.
Thanks!
As far as I can tell, the overall approach is as follows.
- create a new temp heap as non-concurrent does, but with
Is there a particular reason why CREATE RECURSIVE VIEW is part of the
help for CREATE VIEW, but CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW doesn't show up
there?
I realize the technical reason (they're different man pages, and that
also controls what's in \h in psql which is where I ran into it), but
was there any
On 2013-06-27 00:12:07 -0700, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
Two, until we get MVCC catalog scans, it's not safe to update any
system catalog tuple without an AccessExclusiveLock on some locktag
that will prevent concurrent catalog scans for that tuple. Under
SnapshotNow semantics, concurrent
Hi all,
I think this is a naive question.
When we do a commit, WAL buffers are written to the disk. This has a
disk latency for the required I/O.
Now, with group commits, do we see a spike in that disk write latency,
especially in the cases where the user has set wal_buffers to a high
value?
On 26 June 2013 22:48, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:04:34PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
On 26 June 2013 19:32, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:34:52AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
md5_agg() is well-defined and not
On 26 June 2013 21:46, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On 6/26/13 4:04 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
A quick google search reveals several people asking for something like
this, and people recommending md5(string_agg(...)) or
md5(string_agg(md5(...))) based solutions, which are doomed to
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.frwrote:
Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
just tried to build this one, but it doesn't apply cleanly anymore...
specially the ColId_or_Sconst contruct in gram.y
Please find attached a new version of the
Tom Lane said:
Agreed, separating out the function-call-with-trailing-declaration
syntaxes so they aren't considered in FROM and index_elem seems like
the best compromise.
If we do that for window function OVER clauses as well, can we make
OVER less reserved?
Yes.
At least, I tried it with
Hello
2013/6/27 Andrew Gierth and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk:
Tom Lane said:
Agreed, separating out the function-call-with-trailing-declaration
syntaxes so they aren't considered in FROM and index_elem seems like
the best compromise.
If we do that for window function OVER clauses as well, can
2013/6/27 Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net:
Is there a particular reason why CREATE RECURSIVE VIEW is part of the
help for CREATE VIEW, but CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW doesn't show up
there?
I realize the technical reason (they're different man pages, and that
also controls what's in \h in
On 27 June 2013 05:21, Steve Singer st...@ssinger.info wrote:
On 06/26/2013 04:47 PM, Szymon Guz wrote:
Attached patch has all changes against trunk code.
There is added a function for conversion from Postgres numeric to Python
Decimal. The Decimal type is taken from cdecimal.Decimal,
Le mercredi 26 juin 2013 16:52:01, Andrew Dunstan a écrit :
On 06/25/2013 11:29 AM, Cédric Villemain wrote:
Le mardi 25 juin 2013 17:18:51, Andrew Dunstan a écrit :
On 06/24/2013 07:24 PM, Cédric Villemain wrote:
Le mardi 25 juin 2013 00:18:26, Andrew Dunstan a écrit :
On 06/24/2013 04:02
2013/6/26 Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com:
On 26.06.2013 16:41, Yuri Levinsky wrote:
Heikki,
As far as I understand the height of the btree will affect the number of
I/Os necessary. The height of the tree does not increase linearly with
the number of records.
Now let's compare
2013/6/27 Nicolas Barbier nicolas.barb...@gmail.com:
When each index requires one extra I/O (because each index is
one level taller), that is 50 extra I/Os. In the partitioned case,
each index would require the normal smaller amount of I/Os.
[..]
Using those other indexes (both for look-ups
Hi Pavel,
I had a look over your new patch and it looks good to me.
My review comments on patch:
1. It cleanly applies with patch -p1 command.
2. make/make install/make check were smooth.
3. My own testing didn't find any issue.
4. I had a code walk-through and I am little bit worried or
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Nicolas Barbier
nicolas.barb...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/6/27 Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net:
Is there a particular reason why CREATE RECURSIVE VIEW is part of the
help for CREATE VIEW, but CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW doesn't show up
there?
I realize the
On Jun 27, 2013 12:24 PM, Nicolas Barbier nicolas.barb...@gmail.com
wrote:
2013/6/27 Nicolas Barbier nicolas.barb...@gmail.com:
When each index requires one extra I/O (because each index is
one level taller), that is 50 extra I/Os. In the partitioned case,
each index would require the
Hi,
Thanks a lot for your review!
Some answers here, new version of the patch with fixes by tuesday.
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
- If I have control file that has the same name as template, create
extension picks up control file? Is this by design?
Yes. That should allow to
So I would think that if this was to go further then channels would need
to be more of a first class citizen and created explicitly, with CREATE
CHANNEL, DROP CHANNEL etc:
CREATE CHANNEL channame;
GRANT LISTEN ON CHANNEL channame TO rolename;
GRANT NOTIFY ON CHANNEL channame TO
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.frwrote:
Hi,
Thanks a lot for your review!
Some answers here, new version of the patch with fixes by tuesday.
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
- create template ex2, create extension ex2, alter template ex2
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2013/06/25, at 22:23, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Misa Simic
Is there a reason why we have set the min allowed value for port to 1,
not 1024? Given that you can't actually start postgres with a value of
1024, shoulnd't the entry in pg_settings reference that as well?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Hi, Alvaro san,
From: Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
MauMau escribió:
Yeah, I see that --- after removing that early exit, there are unwanted
messages. And in fact there are some signals sent that weren't
previously sent. Clearly we need something here: if we're in immediate
shutdown
Thank you for the review!
There were a few english/grammatical mistakes that I went ahead and fixed.
Thank you for that. If you could send me a patch-to-a-patch so I can
correct all the mistakes in the next release?
Additionally, I think some of the string manipulation might be placed
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 7:40 AM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
I've recovered from messing up.
snip
Please let me have a bit of time to diagnose this.
I was completely messed up and walking on the wrong way. I looked into
the vacuum for UPDATEs, not DELETE's so it's quite resonable to have
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 June 2013 21:46, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On 6/26/13 4:04 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
A quick google search reveals several people asking for something like
this, and people recommending
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
- a template that is created in another template script does not appear
to
depend on the parent template.
I don't think that should be automatically the case, even if I admit I
didn't think about that case.
Really? My understanding is
Hello,
Looking around the 9.3 doc, I found a small, but not-insignificant error in
the documentation.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/ecpg-sql-var.html
According to the description,
EXEC SQL VAR a IS int;
is equivalent to:
Exec sql begin declare section;
int a;
exec sql end
On 6/27/13 6:34 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Is there a reason why we have set the min allowed value for port to 1,
not 1024? Given that you can't actually start postgres with a value of
1024, shoulnd't the entry in pg_settings reference that as well?
Are you thinking of the restriction that you
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
Configuration Details
O/S - Suse-11
RAM - 128GB
Number of Cores - 16
Server Conf - checkpoint_segments = 300; checkpoint_timeout = 15 min,
synchronous_commit = 0FF, shared_buffers = 14GB, AutoVacuum=off Pgbench -
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.com wrote:
at last developer meeting we missed Oleg Bartunov. So, it's not surprising
that photos is also missed.
I remember that somebody took photos, but unfortunately it appears that I
don't remember who.
My employer who
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.com wrote:
at last developer meeting we missed Oleg Bartunov. So, it's not
surprising
that photos is also missed.
I remember that somebody took
Hi,
On 2013-06-26 18:52:30 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
* Could you document the way slots prevent checkpoints from occurring
when XLogInsert rechecks for full page writes? I think it's correct -
but not very obvious on a glance.
There's this in the comment near the top of the
On 2013-06-27 08:23:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I'd like to just back up a minute here and talk about the broader
picture here.
Sounds like a very good plan.
So in other words,
there's no huge *performance* problem for a working set larger than
shared_buffers, but there is a huge
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr wrote:
I think --quiet-log should be spelled --quiet.
ISTM that --quiet usually means not verbose on stdout, so I added log
because this was specific to the log output, and that there may be a need
for a --quiet option for
On 06/27/2013 11:12 AM, Nicolas Barbier wrote:
Imagine that there are a lot of indexes, e.g., 50. Although a lookup
(walking one index) is equally fast, an insertion must update al 50
indexes. When each index requires one extra I/O (because each index is
one level taller), that is 50 extra
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
There will be a newer version of the patch coming today or tomorrow, so
there's probably no point in looking at the one linked above before
that...
This patch is marked as Ready for Committer in the CommitFest app.
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On 6/27/13 6:34 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Is there a reason why we have set the min allowed value for port to 1,
not 1024? Given that you can't actually start postgres with a value of
1024, shoulnd't the entry in
On 27/06/13 15:11, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On 6/27/13 6:34 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Is there a reason why we have set the min allowed value for port to 1,
not 1024? Given that you can't actually start postgres with a
On 2013-06-27 15:11:26 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On 6/27/13 6:34 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Is there a reason why we have set the min allowed value for port to 1,
not 1024? Given that you can't actually start
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2013-06-26 20:07:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
However, some more trolling of the intertubes suggests that Cygwin's
emulation of socket() does indeed return EINPROGRESS; see for instance
this ancient thread of ours:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Contention wise I aggree. What I have seen is that we have a huge
amount of cacheline bouncing around the buffer header spinlocks.
How did you measure that?
I have previously added some adhoc instrumentation that
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 08:41:59AM +, Andrew Gierth wrote:
Tom Lane said:
Agreed, separating out the function-call-with-trailing-declaration
syntaxes so they aren't considered in FROM and index_elem seems
like the best compromise.
If we do that for window function OVER clauses as
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:29 AM, Szymon Guz mabew...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, so I think this patch can be committed, I will change the status.
We have a convention that roles created by the regression tests needs
to have regress or something of the sort in the name, and that they
need to be dropped
On 2013-06-27 09:51:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2013-06-26 21:18:49 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Heroku are interested in online verification of basebackups (i.e.
using checksums to verify the integrity of heap files as they are
backed up,
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2013-06-26 21:18:49 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Heroku are interested in online verification of basebackups (i.e.
using checksums to verify the integrity of heap files as they are
backed up, with a view to relying less and less on logical
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Sawada Masahiko sawada.m...@gmail.com wrote:
1. synchronous standby and make same as failback safe standby
2. asynchronous standby and make same as failback safe standby
in above case, adding new parameter might be meaningless. but I think
that we should
Andrew Gierth and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk writes:
Tom Lane said:
Agreed, separating out the function-call-with-trailing-declaration
syntaxes so they aren't considered in FROM and index_elem seems like
the best compromise.
If we do that for window function OVER clauses as well, can we make
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
Tom Lane said:
If we do that for window function OVER clauses as well, can we make
OVER less reserved?
Isn't dangerous do OVER unreserved keyword??
How so? The worst-case scenario is that we find we have to make it more
reserved again in some
Sure Robert.
I 'll update the tests and get back.
Two questions, while we're at it:
1. Any other conventions (for naming)?
2. Should I assume that all database objects that get created, need to be
dropped explicitly? Or is this point specifically about ROLES?
--
Robins Tharakan
On 27 June
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
On 06/26/2013 12:08 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
I have been suggesting something upon that line in some of the reviews
I've posted about Robins non regression tests, if they were to be
On 06/25/2013 12:03 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
New revision of patch is attached. Now it includes some docs.
Hi,
I was curious about the new layout of the data page, so I spent a while
looking into the code.
It's interesting, but I suspect 2 things are not o.k.:
*
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr wrote:
I think --quiet-log should be spelled --quiet.
ISTM that --quiet usually means not verbose on stdout, so I added log
because this was specific
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
We can play cute tricks akin to what CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY currently
does, i.e. wait for all other relations that could have possibly seen
the old relfilenode (they must have at least a share lock on the
relation) before dropping the actual
On 2013-06-27 09:50:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Contention wise I aggree. What I have seen is that we have a huge
amount of cacheline bouncing around the buffer header spinlocks.
How did you measure that?
perf
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Jeff's patch seems to somewhat alleviate the huge fall in performance I'm
otherwise seeing without the nonlocked-test patch. With the
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr wrote:
I think --quiet-log should be spelled --quiet.
ISTM that --quiet
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
I'd like to see prizes each release for best contribution and best
reviewer - I've thought for years something like this would be worth
trying. Committers and core members should not be eligible - this is about
On 6/23/13 10:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
It'd sure be interesting to know what the SQL committee's target parsing
algorithm is.
It's whatever Oracle and IBM implement.
Or maybe they really don't give a damn about breaking
applications every time they invent a new reserved word?
Well, yes, I
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com wrote:
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Hitoshi Harada umi.tan...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I can tell, the overall approach is as follows.
- create a new temp heap as non-concurrent does, but with
ExclusiveLock on the matview, so that reader
Robins Tharakan thara...@gmail.com writes:
2. Should I assume that all database objects that get created, need to be
dropped explicitly? Or is this point specifically about ROLES?
It's about any global objects (that wouldn't get dropped by dropping the
regression database). As far as local
On 6/27/13 10:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
So I'd like to endorse Josh's idea: subject to appropriate review,
let's add these test cases. Then, if it really turns out to be too
burdensome, we can take them out, or figure out a sensible way to
split the suite. Pushing all of Robins work into a
On 6/26/13 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
(I like to
point at mysql's regression tests, which take well over an hour even on
fast machines. If lots of tests are so helpful, why is their bug rate
no better than ours?)
Tests are not (primarily) there to prevent bugs.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I don't think I actually found any workload where the bgwriter
actually wroute out a relevant percentage of the necessary pages.
I had one at Wisconsin Courts. The database which we targeted with
logical replication from the 72 circuit court
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On 6/26/13 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
(I like to
point at mysql's regression tests, which take well over an hour even on
fast machines. If lots of tests are so helpful, why is their bug rate
no better than ours?)
Tests are not (primarily) there to
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Boszormenyi Zoltan z...@cybertec.at wrote:
Hi,
I just realized that in the original incarnation of lock_timeout,
I used ERRCODE_LOCK_NOT_AVAILABLE (to be consistent with NOWAIT)
but the patch that was accepted into 9.3 contained ERRCODE_QUERY_CANCELED
which
Looking around the 9.3 doc, I found a small, but not-insignificant
error in the documentation.
Thanks for finding and fixing. Patch committed.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
The only feedback we have on how bad things are is how long it took
the last fsync to complete, so I actually think that's a much better
way to go than any fixed sleep - which will often be unnecessarily
long on
2013-06-27 17:03 keltezéssel, Fujii Masao írta:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Boszormenyi Zoltan z...@cybertec.at wrote:
Hi,
I just realized that in the original incarnation of lock_timeout,
I used ERRCODE_LOCK_NOT_AVAILABLE (to be consistent with NOWAIT)
but the patch that was accepted
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr wrote:
Here is a v4 that takes into account most of your points: The report is
performed for all threads by thread 0, however --progress is not supported
under thread fork emulation if there are more than one thread. The report
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:56 AM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote:
When we do a commit, WAL buffers are written to the disk. This has a
disk latency for the required I/O.
Check.
Now, with group commits, do we see a spike in that disk write latency,
especially in the cases where the user
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
The functionality of materialized views will (over time) totally swamp
that of normal views, so mixing all the corresponding documentation
with the documentation for normal views probably doesn’t make things
easier for
On 6/27/13 10:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On 6/26/13 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
(I like to
point at mysql's regression tests, which take well over an hour even on
fast machines. If lots of tests are so helpful, why is their bug rate
no better than ours?)
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
Now I can look into it further, I have still not gone through in detail
about your new approach to calculate the reltuples, but I am wondering
whether there can be anyway with which estimates can be improved with
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Marko Kreen mark...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 26 June 2013 21:46, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On 6/26/13 4:04 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
A quick google search reveals several
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
I think that's a limitation of the old model and we don't want to turn
templates for extensions into being shared catalogs. At least that's my
understanding of the design consensus.
I agree.
--
Robert Haas
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Hari Babu haribabu.ko...@huawei.com wrote:
On June 26, 2013 5:02 AM Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
Thanks for the
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net
wrote:
I'd like to see prizes each release for best contribution and best
reviewer - I've thought for years something like this would be worth
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:50:07AM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
b) It would be a pretty good thing to mention reviewers within commit notes;
that provides some direct trace-back as to who it was that either validated
that the change was good, or that let a bad one slip through.
c) The
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
On 2013-06-27 15:11:26 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net
wrote:
On 6/27/13 6:34 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Is there a reason why we have set the min
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
There will be a newer version of the patch coming today or tomorrow, so
there's probably no point in looking at the one linked above before
On 06/27/2013 12:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:50:07AM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
It could be pretty satisfactory to have a simple listing, in the
release notes, of the set of reviewers. That's a lot less
bookkeeping than
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote:
Now, with group commits, do we see a spike in that disk write latency,
especially in the cases where the user has set wal_buffers to a high
value?
commit_delay exists to artificially increase the window in which the
2013/6/27 Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch:
On 06/27/2013 11:12 AM, Nicolas Barbier wrote:
Imagine that there are a lot of indexes, e.g., 50. Although a lookup
(walking one index) is equally fast, an insertion must update al 50
indexes. When each index requires one extra I/O (because each
Dear Robert,
Here is a v4 that takes into account most of your points: The report is
performed for all threads by thread 0, however --progress is not supported
under thread fork emulation if there are more than one thread. The report
time does not slip anymore.
I don't believe that to be an
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2013-06-26 20:07:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I still want to delete the test for SOCK_ERRNO == 0. I traced that back
to commit da9501bddb4dc33c031b1db6ce2133bcee7b, but I can't find
anything in the mailing list archives to explain that. I
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:50:07AM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
It could be pretty satisfactory to have a simple listing, in the
release notes, of the set of reviewers. That's a lot less
bookkeeping than tracking this for each and every change.
On 6/27/13 4:19 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
I'd say there are clearly people who want it, and the nature of some
of those answers suggests to me that we ought to have a better answer
in core.
It's not clear what these people wanted this functionality for. They
all wanted to analyze a table to
commit_delay exists to artificially increase the window in which the
leader backend waits for more group commit followers. At higher client
counts, that isn't terribly useful because you'll naturally have
enough clients anyway, but at lower client counts particularly where
fsyncs have high
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
