Re: [HACKERS] Optimizing pglz compressor

On Monday, July 01, 2013 1:36 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 26.06.2013 16:37, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 2:15 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> Can you also try the attached patch, please? It's the same as > before, > >> but in this version, I didn't replace the prev and

Re: [HACKERS] Move unused buffers to freelist

On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 12:00 AM Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Amit kapila > wrote: > > Do you think it will be sufficient to just wake bgwriter when the > buffers in freelist drops > > below low watermark, how about it's current job of flushing dirty > buffers? > > Well

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for fail-back without fresh backup

On Friday, June 28, 2013 10:41 AM Sawada Masahiko wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Amit Kapila > wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:23 AM Amit Langote wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> > > >> >> So our proposal on this problem is that we must ensure that > master > >> should > >> > not make

Re: [HACKERS] Randomisation for ensuring nlogn complexity in quicksort

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Atri Sharma wrote: >> I have been reading the recent discussion and was researching a bit, and I >> think that we should really go with the idea of randomising the input >> data(if it is not completely presort

[HACKERS] [PATCH] Add an ldapoption to disable chasing LDAP referrals

Hey All, This patch request grew from this post (of mine) to pgsql-general: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cabuevezouae-g1_oejagujjmem675dnystwybp4d_wz6om+...@mail.gmail.com The patch adds another available LDAP option (ldapnochaseref) for search+bind mode in the pg_hba.conf fil. If set to

Re: [HACKERS] Support for RANGE ... PRECEDING windows in OVER

Craig Ringer writes: > On 07/02/2013 02:39 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I'm actually >> not clear that it would be all that bad to assume fixed operator >> names, as we apparently do in a few places despite the existence of >> operator classes. But if that is bad, then I don't know how using @+ >> a

[HACKERS] Large object + FREEZE?

Now that we have COPY FREEZE, I'm thinking about adding similar option to creating large objects. In 9.3 the maximum size of large objects are increased. That means, the first access to a large object will trigger more writes because of hint bit updation. Also subsequent VACUUM may trigger that as

Re: [HACKERS] Eliminating PD_ALL_VISIBLE, take 2

On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 16:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > Well, I don't believe there's any way to really eliminate the > contention concern completely. There's no way around the fact that it > means more access to the visibility map, and I've seen recent (albeit > circumstantial thus far) evidence

Re: [HACKERS] Eliminating PD_ALL_VISIBLE, take 2

On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 20:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > One of several relevant emails is at: > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/51a7473c.6070...@vmware.com > > It is definitely possible that I am mixing up two different things. > But if I am, I don't know what the other one is. I believ

Re: [HACKERS] Eliminating PD_ALL_VISIBLE, take 2

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > Can you point me to that criticism? Why can't you just drop the VM > completely if it becomes corrupted? > > (You might be referring to another idea of mine that was related to > Andres's proposal for "getting rid of freezing".) One of several r

Re: [HACKERS] Support for RANGE ... PRECEDING windows in OVER

On 07/02/2013 02:39 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I'm actually > not clear that it would be all that bad to assume fixed operator > names, as we apparently do in a few places despite the existence of > operator classes. But if that is bad, then I don't know how using @+ > and @- instead helps anything.

Re: [HACKERS] Eliminating PD_ALL_VISIBLE, take 2

On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 16:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > The other concern I remember being expressed (and not just by me, but > by a number of people) is that your patch turns loss of a visibility > map bit into a data corruption scenario, which it currently isn't. > Right now, if your visibility m

Re: [HACKERS] fixing pg_ctl with relative paths

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> Though this is a corner case, the patch doesn't seem to handle properly the >>> case >>> where "-D" appears as other optio

Re: PL/Lua (was: [HACKERS] plpython implementation)

On 07/02/2013 01:54 AM, Luis Carvalho wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 18:15 -0400, Luis Carvalho wrote: The project is maintained -- I don't know how to say when something is well-maintained, but small frequency of code updates is not one of my criteria; The bug tracker c

Re: PL/Lua (was: [HACKERS] plpython implementation)

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 18:15 -0400, Luis Carvalho wrote: > > The project is maintained -- I don't know how to say when something is > > well-maintained, but small frequency of code updates is not one of my > > criteria; > > The bug tracker contains bugs about build proble

Re: [HACKERS] Support for RANGE ... PRECEDING windows in OVER

Robert Haas writes: > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Currently, all operator classes are tied to access methods. Since >> nobody seems to have any great idea about creating an access method that >> requires addition and subtraction, would it make sense to have operat

[HACKERS] Add /coverage/ to .gitignore

Hi all, When we run... ./configure --enable-converage make coverage-html ...the output is generated into /coverage/ directory. The attached patch add /converage/ to .gitignore. Regards, -- Fabrízio de Royes Mello Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL >> Blog sobre TI: http://fabriziomello.blogspot.

Re: [HACKERS] Support for RANGE ... PRECEDING windows in OVER

On 07/01/2013 12:05 AM, ian link wrote: > Definitely not this week. Hopefully for next commit fest. > OK, marked "Returned with Feedback". It'll be up to you to add it to the next commitfest if you think it's ready by then. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent

Re: PL/Lua (was: [HACKERS] plpython implementation)

On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 18:15 -0400, Luis Carvalho wrote: > The project is maintained -- I don't know how to say when something is > well-maintained, but small frequency of code updates is not one of my > criteria; The bug tracker contains bugs about build problems with PG 8.4, 9.2, and 9.3, which

Re: [HACKERS] Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Please find attached an updated version of the patch removing >> reltoastidxid (with and w/o context diffs), patch fixing the vacuum >> full issue. With this fix, all the

Re: [HACKERS] Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Hi all, > > Please find attached an updated version of the patch removing > reltoastidxid (with and w/o context diffs), patch fixing the vacuum > full issue. With this fix, all the comments are addressed. Thanks for updating the patch! I h

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl and -h/help

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Agreed --- attached patch applied. I also noticed that we sometimes > test for -? then --help, but other times do things in the opposite > order, and the same for -V/--version, so I made that consistent. > > However, I also noticed that while

[HACKERS] Request for Patch Feedback: Lag & Lead Window Functions Can Ignore Nulls

> pg_get_viewdef() needs to be updated Ah, good catch - I've fixed this in the attached. I also discovered that there's a parent-child hierarchy of WindowDefs (using relname->name), so instead of cloning the WindowDef (in parse_agg.c) if the frameOptions are different (e.g. by adding the ignore-nu

PL/Lua (was: [HACKERS] plpython implementation)

Hi all, Claudio Freire wrote: > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:29 AM, james wrote: > > On 01/07/2013 02:43, Claudio Freire wrote: > >> > >> In essence, you'd have to use another implementation. CPython guys > >> have left it very clear they don't intend to "fix" that, as they don't > >> consider it a b

Re: [HACKERS] Add more regression tests for CREATE OPERATOR

On 26 June 2013 02:26, Robins Tharakan wrote: > So technically I hope this regression patch I submitted could go through > since this feedback isn't towards that patch, but in my part I am quite > intrigued about this test (and how it passes) and probably I'd get back on > this thread about this

Re: [HACKERS] Randomisation for ensuring nlogn complexity in quicksort

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: > What? > > A median of medians algorithm will guarantee floor(N/2) elements on > the smaller. That's the definition of median. > > Note that I'm referring to picking the actual median of all tuples, > not just a sample. That's slow, but it gua

Re: [HACKERS] extensible external toast tuple support

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> I must be missing something. At that point, yes, you'd like to avoid >> re-toasting unnecessarily, but ISTM you've already bought the farm. >> Unless I'm misunderstanding the code as written, you'd just end up >> writing the indirect pointer

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation/help for materialized and recursive views

Robert Haas escribió: > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > I still think a better option to that would be to get psql to provide > > a link to the full documentation there. > > It seems like clutter to me, but I'll defer to whatever the consensus is. I second the idea of

Re: [HACKERS] pg_resetxlog -m documentation not up to date

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/19/13 9:57 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> Ping. This ought to be fixed before 9.3 goes out. > > > > Will fix. > > > >> On Sat, 2013-04-27 at 21:22 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >>> The pg_resetxlog -m option was changed from > > The

Re: [HACKERS] Randomisation for ensuring nlogn complexity in quicksort

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I have been reading the recent discussion and was researching a bit, and I >> think that we should really go with the idea of randomising the input >> data(if it is not completely presorted), to ensure that we do not get >> quadratic comple

Re: [HACKERS] fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)

On 7/1/13 3:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote: Yeah. If the patch isn't going to be a win on RHEL 5, I'd consider that a good reason to scrap it for now and revisit it in 3 years. There are still a LOT of people running RHEL 5, and the win isn't big enough to engineer a more complex solution. I'm still

Re: [HACKERS] changeset generation v5-01 - Patches & git tree

On 27 June 2013 23:18, Tom Lane wrote: > Exactly what is the argument that says performance of this > function is sufficiently critical to justify adding both the maintenance > overhead of a new pg_class index, *and* a broken-by-design syscache? > I think we all agree on changing the syscache.

Re: [HACKERS] Bugfix and new feature for PGXS

On 07/01/2013 04:39 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 6/29/13 1:54 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: I haven't seen a response to this. One thing we are missing is documentation. Given that I'm inclined to commit all of this (i.e. cedric's patches 1,2,3, and 4 plus my addition). Could someone post an upd

Re: [HACKERS] pg_resetxlog -m documentation not up to date

On 6/19/13 9:57 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Ping. This ought to be fixed before 9.3 goes out. > > Will fix. > >> On Sat, 2013-04-27 at 21:22 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> The pg_resetxlog -m option was changed from The man page lists the -m option as -m mxid,mxid

Re: [HACKERS] Add regression tests for DISCARD

On 17 June 2013 18:14, Marko Kreen wrote: > Perhaps existing tests in guc.sql should be merged into it? > > Thanks Marko for pointing out about guc.sql. Please find attached a patch to move DISCARD related tests from guc.sql to discard.sql. It adds an extra test for a DISCARD PLANS line, althoug

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

On 7/1/13 3:47 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > and it is a part of our ToDo: "Add function to allow the creation of > timestamps using parameters" > > so we can have a functions with signatures I would just name them date(...), time(...), etc. > CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION construct_date(year int, mon

Re: [HACKERS] Bugfix and new feature for PGXS

On 6/29/13 1:54 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > I haven't seen a response to this. One thing we are missing is > documentation. Given that I'm inclined to commit all of this (i.e. > cedric's patches 1,2,3, and 4 plus my addition). Could someone post an updated set of patches that is currently under co

Re: [HACKERS] Randomisation for ensuring nlogn complexity in quicksort

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote: This shouldn't be too complex, and should give us a fixed nlogn complexity even for wild data sets, without affecting existi

Re: [HACKERS] plpython implementation

On 7/1/13 1:29 AM, james wrote: > Given how useful it is to have a scripting language that can be used > outside > of the database as well as inside it, would it be reasonable to consider > 'promoting' pllua? You can start promoting pllua by making it work with current PostgreSQL versions. It has

Re: [HACKERS] GIN improvements part 1: additional information

On 01.07.2013 13:28, Alexander Korotkov wrote: Thanks! So, we have a lot of stuff and you give the points for further work. Could you please verify my plan of work on these patches: 1) Solving questions of archives.postgresql.org/** message-id/51CEA13C.8040103@**vmware.com

Re: [HACKERS] "pg_ctl promote" exit status

On 7/1/13 12:47 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> Approximately none of these changes seem correct to me. For example, >> why is failing to open the PID file 6, or failing to start the server 7? > > Well, according to that URL, we have: > > 6 program is not configured > 7 progr

Re: [HACKERS] Randomisation for ensuring nlogn complexity in quicksort

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> This shouldn't be too complex, and should give us a fixed nlogn complexity >>> even for wild data sets, without affecting existing normal data sets that >>> are present in every day tr

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation/help for materialized and recursive views

On 07/01/2013 07:20 AM, David Fetter wrote: On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 10:05:24AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 6/28/13 2:27 PM, David Fetter wrote: You can run \! man from within psql, And if you're on Windows, you're Sadly Out of Luck with that. Is there an equivalent we could #ifdef in

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation/help for materialized and recursive views

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > How different are they really? Yes, they are very different from an > implementation standpoint, from an enduser perspective they really are > not. If they were, they'd probably be called something else. They're different because they consu

Re: [HACKERS] Eliminating PD_ALL_VISIBLE, take 2

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Sun, 2013-06-30 at 22:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> I thought that Jeff withdrew this patch. > > No -- was there a reason you thought that? I thought I remembered you saying you were going to abandon it in the face of objections. > I know

Re: [HACKERS] fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)

On 7/1/13 12:34 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Sun, 2013-06-30 at 16:09 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> It was originally generated. Since then it's been maintained by hand. > > What is the procedure for maintaining it by hand? Edit away. > Why are > HAVE_POSIX_SIGNALS and HAVE_SYNC_FILE_RANGE in th

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation/help for materialized and recursive views

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:20 AM, David Fetter wrote: >> With deepest respect, failing to provide documentation to users on our >> widest-deployed platform seems pretty hostile to me. > > Yes, that would be pretty hostile. However, we don't do

Re: [HACKERS] Randomisation for ensuring nlogn complexity in quicksort

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> This shouldn't be too complex, and should give us a fixed nlogn complexity >> even for wild data sets, without affecting existing normal data sets that >> are present in every day transactions. I even believe that those data sets >> will als

Re: [HACKERS] extensible external toast tuple support

On 2013-06-28 11:25:50 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Andres Freund > wrote: > >> Why does toast_insert_or_update() need to go through all the > >> rigamarole in toast_datum_differs()? I would have thought that it > >> could simply treat any external-indirect value

Re: [HACKERS] fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 02:13 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> Even in that case, if a user can easily know which platform posix_fallocate >> should be used in, we can commit the patch with the configurable GUC >> parameter. > > I disagree here. We're

Re: [HACKERS] Support for RANGE ... PRECEDING windows in OVER

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas escribió: >> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:54 PM, ian link wrote: > >> > It seems pretty clear that assuming '+' and '-' are addition and >> > subtraction >> > is a bad idea. I don't think it would be too tricky to add support for

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation/help for materialized and recursive views

On 07/01/2013 03:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote: Regardless of whether you agree with or disagree with the above statement, building a high-quality documentation reader into psql so that users who are running Windows but not mingw, cygwin, or pgAdmin can access the documentation more easily doesn't se

Re: [HACKERS] Randomisation for ensuring nlogn complexity in quicksort

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Atri Sharma wrote: > I have been reading the recent discussion and was researching a bit, and I > think that we should really go with the idea of randomising the input data(if > it is not completely presorted), to ensure that we do not get quadratic > complexity

Re: [HACKERS] Support for RANGE ... PRECEDING windows in OVER

Robert Haas escribió: > On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:54 PM, ian link wrote: > > It seems pretty clear that assuming '+' and '-' are addition and subtraction > > is a bad idea. I don't think it would be too tricky to add support for new > > operator strategies. Andrew Gierth suggested calling these

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation/help for materialized and recursive views

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:20 AM, David Fetter wrote: > With deepest respect, failing to provide documentation to users on our > widest-deployed platform seems pretty hostile to me. Yes, that would be pretty hostile. However, we don't do anything that remotely resembles that statement, nor has an

Re: [HACKERS] MVCC catalog access

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > This is really cool stuff. Thanks. > I have to say, if the thing that primarily suffers is pretty extreme DDL > in extreme situations I am not really worried. Anybody running anything > close to the territory of such concurrency won't perfo

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] big test separation POC

While testing patch, I found that make installcheck breaks with your patch and gives following error: Indeed, I did not put the dependency for that target, I really tested "check" & "bigcheck". The attached patch adds the needed dependency for installcheck, and I could run it. I checked that

Re: [HACKERS] Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:19 AM, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > I have re-validated this new patch and it looks good to go in now. > > I saw that it's already marked ready for committer. I don't normally like to commit things over another committer's objections, but this has +1 votes from four other commi

Re: [HACKERS] changeset generation v5-01 - Patches & git tree

On 2013-07-01 14:16:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > So the question is, do we take the overhead of the new index (which > > means overhead on DML operations -- supposedly rare) or do we take the > > overhead of larger WAL records (which means overhead on all DDL > > operatio

Re: [HACKERS] Support for RANGE ... PRECEDING windows in OVER

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:54 PM, ian link wrote: > I found some time and I think I am up to speed now. I finally figured out > how to add new operator strategies and made a little test operator for > myself. > > It seems pretty clear that assuming '+' and '-' are addition and subtraction > is a b

Re: [HACKERS] review: Non-recursive processing of AND/OR lists

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2013/6/30 Gurjeet Singh : >> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Pavel Stehule >> wrote: >>> >>> 2013/6/30 Gurjeet Singh : >>> > On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Pavel Stehule >>> > >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > How about naming those 3 variables

Re: [HACKERS] Move unused buffers to freelist

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Amit kapila wrote: > Do you think it will be sufficient to just wake bgwriter when the buffers in > freelist drops > below low watermark, how about it's current job of flushing dirty buffers? Well, the only point of flushing dirty buffers in the background writer

Re: [HACKERS] fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)

On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 02:13 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > Even in that case, if a user can easily know which platform posix_fallocate > should be used in, we can commit the patch with the configurable GUC > parameter. I disagree here. We're not talking about a huge win; this speedup may not even be

Re: [HACKERS] changeset generation v5-01 - Patches & git tree

Alvaro Herrera writes: > So the question is, do we take the overhead of the new index (which > means overhead on DML operations -- supposedly rare) or do we take the > overhead of larger WAL records (which means overhead on all DDL > operations)? > Note we can make either thing apply to only peop

Re: [HACKERS] changeset generation v5-01 - Patches & git tree

Since this discussion seems to have stalled, let me do a quick summary. The goal of this subset of patches is to allow retroactive look up of relations starting from a WAL record. Currently, the WAL record only tracks the relfilenode that it affects, so there are two possibilities: 1. we add some

Re: [HACKERS] Outputting UTC offset with to_char()

Applied. I referenced macros for some of the new constants, e.g. SECS_PER_HOUR. --- On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:04:49PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 05:40:40PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > I

Re: [HACKERS] Eliminating PD_ALL_VISIBLE, take 2

On Sun, 2013-06-30 at 22:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > I thought that Jeff withdrew this patch. No -- was there a reason you thought that? I know it could use another round of testing before commit, and there may be a couple other things to clear up. But I don't want to invest a lot of time there

Re: [HACKERS] Minor inheritance/check bug: Inconsistent behavior

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 06:57:10AM +, Amit kapila wrote: > >> I have done the initial analysis and prepared a patch, don't know if > >> anything more I can do until > >> someone can give any suggestions to further proceed on this bug. > > >So, I guess we never figured this out. > > I can subm

Re: [HACKERS] fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Sun, 2013-06-30 at 18:55 -0400, Greg Smith wrote: >> This makes platform level testing a lot easier, thanks. Attached is an >> updated copy of that program with some error checking. If the files it >> creates already existed, the code didn't

Re: [HACKERS] Randomisation for ensuring nlogn complexity in quicksort

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:02 PM, David Fetter wrote: > On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 04:42:04AM -0700, jasmine wrote: >> My PostgresSQL (9.2) is crashing after certain load tests. Currently, >> postgressql is crashing when simulatenously 800 to 1000 threads are run on a >> 10 million records schema. Not

Re: [HACKERS] in-catalog Extension Scripts and Control parameters (templates?)

I think this is unlikely to work reliably: + PG_TRY(); + { + ExtensionControl *control = read_extension_control_file(extname); + + if (control) + { + ereport(ERROR, + (errcode(ERRCODE_DUPLICATE_OBJECT), +errmsg("extension \"%s\

Re: [HACKERS] fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)

On Sun, 2013-06-30 at 18:55 -0400, Greg Smith wrote: > This makes platform level testing a lot easier, thanks. Attached is an > updated copy of that program with some error checking. If the files it > creates already existed, the code didn't notice, and a series of write > errors happened. If

Re: [HACKERS] Optimizing pglz compressor

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:05:37AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 26.06.2013 16:37, Amit Kapila wrote: > >On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 2:15 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >>Can you also try the attached patch, please? It's the same as before, > >>but in this version, I didn't replace the prev

Re: [HACKERS] "pg_ctl promote" exit status

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:11:23AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/28/13 10:50 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 09:46:32AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> On 1/26/13 4:44 PM, Aaron W. Swenson wrote: > >>> You are right. Had I read a little further down, it seems that t

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl and -h/help

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 02:29:20PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > In studying pg_upgrade's handling of --help, I noticed that pg_ctl > > supports -h for help, but it is the only tool to do so, and -h is not > > documented. I propose we r

Re: [HACKERS] in-catalog Extension Scripts and Control parameters (templates?)

Very minor comment here: these SGML "id" tags: + are pretty important, because they become the URL for the specific page in the reference docs. So I think you should fix them to be the correct spelling of the command "alter template for extension", and also perhaps add an hyphen or two. Maybe

Re: [HACKERS] fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)

On Sun, 2013-06-30 at 16:09 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > It was originally generated. Since then it's been maintained by hand. What is the procedure for maintaining it by hand? Why are HAVE_POSIX_SIGNALS and HAVE_SYNC_FILE_RANGE in there (though commented out), but not HAVE_POSIX_FADVISE? Regar

Re: [HACKERS] Randomisation for ensuring nlogn complexity in quicksort

On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 04:42:04AM -0700, jasmine wrote: > My PostgresSQL (9.2) is crashing after certain load tests. Currently, > postgressql is crashing when simulatenously 800 to 1000 threads are run on a > 10 million records schema. Not sure, if we have to tweak some more > parameters of postgr

Re: FILTER for aggregates [was Re: [HACKERS] Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division]

On 1 July 2013 01:44, David Fetter wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:22:52PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote: >> On 21 June 2013 06:16, David Fetter wrote: >> > Please find attached a patch which allows subqueries in the FILTER >> > clause and adds regression testing for same. >> > >> >> This needs r

Re: [HACKERS] Randomisation for ensuring nlogn complexity in quicksort

My PostgresSQL (9.2) is crashing after certain load tests. Currently, postgressql is crashing when simulatenously 800 to 1000 threads are run on a 10 million records schema. Not sure, if we have to tweak some more parameters of postgres. - jasmine -- View this message in context: http://po

Re: [HACKERS] Passing fdw_private data from PlanForeignScan to PlanForeignModify

--On 13. Juni 2013 18:12:05 -0400 Tom Lane wrote: What i tried before was to access (in PlanForeignModify) the RelOptInfo structure through PlannerInfo->simple_rel_array, assuming the the resultRelation index points to the right array member. However, that didn't work, the fdw_private List i

Re: [HACKERS] fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Greg Smith wrote: > On 6/30/13 9:28 PM, Jon Nelson wrote: >> >> The performance of the latter (new) test sometimes seems to perform >> worse and sometimes seems to perform better (usually worse) than >> either of the other two. In all cases, posix_fallocate perfor

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation/help for materialized and recursive views

On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 10:52:55AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 7/1/13 10:20 AM, David Fetter wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 10:05:24AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> On 6/28/13 2:27 PM, David Fetter wrote: > You can run \! man from within psql, > >>> And if you're on Windows,

[HACKERS] Shorter iterations of join_info_list

As far as I understand, deconstruct_recurse() ensures that SpecialJoinInfo of a new join always gets added to higher position in join_info_list than SJ infos of all joins located below the new join in the tree. I wonder if we can rely on that fact sometimes. One possible use case could be pla

Re: [HACKERS] request a new feature in fuzzystrmatch

Joe Conway escribió: > Actually, given that this change will create version 1.1 of the > extension, I believe the 1.0 versions of the sql scripts should > probably be removed entirely. Can someone with more knowledge of the > extension facility comment on that? Besides what Michael said, another

Re: [HACKERS] checking variadic "any" argument in parser - should be array

2013/6/29 Pavel Stehule : > Hello > > updated patch - precious Assert, more comments > > Regards > > Pavel > stripped variadic_any_parser_check-3.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://ww

Re: [HACKERS] checking variadic "any" argument in parser - should be array

Pavel Stehule escribió: > Hello > > updated patch - precious Assert, more comments Pavel, can you please remove quoted text from messages you reply to? This message has 10kb of completely useless text. Thanks, -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development,

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation/help for materialized and recursive views

On 7/1/13 10:20 AM, David Fetter wrote: > On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 10:05:24AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 6/28/13 2:27 PM, David Fetter wrote: You can run \! man from within psql, >>> And if you're on Windows, you're Sadly Out of Luck with that. Is >>> there an equivalent we could #if

Re: [HACKERS] New regression test time

On 2013-07-01 07:14:23 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > > If we had a different set of tests, that would be a valid argument. But > > we don't, so it's not. And nobody has offered to write a feature to > > split our tests either. > With utmost respect, this just isn't true. There is a "make coverag

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] big test separation POC

Hi Fabien, On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > - I do not understand why the makefile specifies $(srcdir) before >>>local files in some places. >>> >> >> For VPATH builds :-) >> > > Here is a v2 which is more likely to work under VPATH. I really appreciate your effo

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation/help for materialized and recursive views

On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 10:05:24AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/28/13 2:27 PM, David Fetter wrote: > >> You can run \! man from within psql, > > And if you're on Windows, you're Sadly Out of Luck with that. Is > > there an equivalent we could #ifdef in for that platform? > > If you are u

Re: [HACKERS] LDAP: bugfix and deprecated OpenLDAP API

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Btw., I just checked the source code of Apache, PHP, and PAM, and they > are all unconditionally building with LDAP_DEPRECATED. So maybe there > is no hurry about this. I don't think that the old API functions will go away until there is a new standard for the LDAP C API

Re: [HACKERS] LDAP: bugfix and deprecated OpenLDAP API

Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote: >> I found a small bug in the implementation of LDAP connection >> parameter lookup. [...] >> As coded now, the timeout won't work - if the LDAP server >> is down, ldap_simple_bind will wait for the network >> timeout,

Re: [HACKERS] New regression test time

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 02:59:35PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 06/29/2013 02:14 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > AIUI: They do test feature use and errors that have cropped up in the > > past that we need to beware of. They don't test every bug we've ever > > had, nor do they exercise every piece o

Re: [HACKERS] "pg_ctl promote" exit status

On 6/28/13 10:50 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 09:46:32AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 1/26/13 4:44 PM, Aaron W. Swenson wrote: >>> You are right. Had I read a little further down, it seems that the >>> exit status should actually be 7. >> >> 7 is OK for "not running",

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation/help for materialized and recursive views

On 6/28/13 2:27 PM, David Fetter wrote: >> You can run \! man from within psql, > And if you're on Windows, you're Sadly Out of Luck with that. Is > there an equivalent we could #ifdef in for that platform? If you are using psql on Windows extensively, you probably have one of mingw, cygwin, or p

Re: [HACKERS] MVCC catalog access

On 2013-06-28 23:14:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > Here's a further update of this patch. In this version, I added some > mechanism to send a new kind of sinval message that is sent when a > catalog without catcaches is updated; it doesn't apply to all > catalogs, just to whichever ones we want to

Re: [HACKERS] XLogInsert scaling, revisited

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 fi

Re: [HACKERS] Review: Display number of changed rows since last analyze

Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Albe Laurenz >>> wrote: I think that the column name is ok as it is, even if it is a bit long - I cannot come up with a more succinct idea. Perhaps "n_changed_since_analyze" could be shortened to "n_mod_since_analyze

Re: [HACKERS] New regression test time

On Monday, July 01, 2013 8:37 AM Josh Berkus wrote: On 06/30/2013 12:33 AM, Amit kapila wrote: > > On Sunday, June 30, 2013 11:37 AM Fabien COELHO wrote: If we had a different set of tests, that would be a valid argument. But we don't, so it's not. And nobody has offered to write a feat

  1   2   >