On 06/08/13 13:59, Robert Haas wrote:
My thought is to create a
queue abstraction that sits on top of the dynamic shared memory
infrastructure, so that you can set aside a portion of your dynamic
shared memory segment to use as a ring buffer and send messages back
and forth with using some
On 7/2/13 8:42 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Updated files with changes:
- adjusted fill-column to 78, per Noah
- added c-file-style, per Andrew
- support both postgresql and postgres directory names
- use defun instead of lambda, per Dimitri
- put Perl configuration back into emacs.samples,
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
Did anyone have any outstanding concerns about this latest version? I
thought it looked ready to commit.
I wanted to have another round at trying it here and get a better
understanding at my failures of the previous time, but that's not a
blocker at
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
FWIW I'd rather keep plain promotion for a release or two. TBH, I have a
bit of trust issues regarding the
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 12:24 AM, MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com
However, isn't StandbyRequested true (= standby_mode set to on) to
enable
warm standby?
We can
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 12:24 AM, MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com
However, isn't StandbyRequested true (= standby_mode set to on) to enable
warm standby?
We can set up warm-standby by using pg_standby even if standby_mode = off.
I see. However, I
Robert Haas escribió:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
heap_deform_tuple and slot_deform_tuple contain duplicated code. This
patch refactors them so that the guts are in a single place.
I have checked the resulting assembly code for
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2013-08-05 10:49:08 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
optimization 4: remove free list lock (via Jeff Janes). This is the
other optimization: one backend will no longer be able to shut down
buffer allocation
I think
Bruce Momjian escribió:
We already have six levels of GUC settings:
postgresql.conf
user
database
session
function
subtransaction
If we add ALTER SYSTEM SET and config.d, we would then have eight.
Actually, conf.d (not config.d) would just be
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:59:05AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
If we do this, perhaps we should unconditionally just print the file
name they have to delete to undo the operation in case the server
doesn't start;
However, bear in mind that if the DBA is administering a server through
Hi all,
I recently tried a simple benchmark to see how far 9.4 had come since
8.4, but I discovered that I couldn't get 9.4 to even touch 8.4 for
performance. After checking 9.2 and 9.3 (as per Kevin Grittner's
suggestion), I found that those were fine, so the issue must be in
9.4devel. I used
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 12:24 AM, MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com
However, isn't StandbyRequested true (= standby_mode set to on) to enable
warm standby?
We can set up
On 2013-08-07 10:36:52 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Robert Haas escribió:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
heap_deform_tuple and slot_deform_tuple contain duplicated code. This
patch refactors them so that the guts are in a single place.
On 2013-08-07 17:21:01 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
Only build option used was --enable-depend. I did have
--enable-cassert for the shorter 5 min benchmarks, but was removed for
the 30 min tests.
pgbench -j 80 -c 80 -T 300:
8.4 - 535.990042
9.2 - 820.798141
9.3 - 828.395498
9.4 -
On 2013-08-07 22:26:53 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
FWIW I'd rather keep plain promotion for a release or
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
Hi all,
I recently tried a simple benchmark to see how far 9.4 had come since
8.4, but I discovered that I couldn't get 9.4 to even touch 8.4 for
performance. After checking 9.2 and 9.3 (as per Kevin Grittner's
suggestion), I
On 7 August 2013 17:49, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-08-07 17:21:01 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
Only build option used was --enable-depend. I did have
--enable-cassert for the shorter 5 min benchmarks, but was removed for
the 30 min tests.
pgbench -j 80 -c 80 -T 300:
Bruce,
There are three issues here:
1. What will best motive reviewers?
2. What is a reasonable effort to accomplish #1?
3. What is acceptable for release note readers?
You seem to be only focused on #1, and you don't want to address the
other items --- that's fine --- I will still
On 2013-08-07 09:40:24 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
I don't think the unlocked increment of nextVictimBuffer is a good idea
though. nextVictimBuffer jumping over NBuffers under concurrency seems
like a recipe for disaster to me. At the very, very least it will need a
good wad of comments
Andres Freund escribió:
On 2013-08-07 10:36:52 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Yeah, I guess in isolation this doesn't make that much sense. I am
hesitant to create a third copy in the minmax patch, but I will do that
for now and propose the refactoring later.
Well, you didn't mention
On 2013-08-07 10:04:08 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce,
There are three issues here:
1. What will best motive reviewers?
2. What is a reasonable effort to accomplish #1?
3. What is acceptable for release note readers?
You seem to be only focused on #1, and you don't want to
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:04:08AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce,
There are three issues here:
1. What will best motive reviewers?
2. What is a reasonable effort to accomplish #1?
3. What is acceptable for release note readers?
You seem to be only focused on #1, and you
On 08/07/2013 10:10 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-08-07 10:04:08 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
In the novels The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, there's a spaceship
which has been waiting 1000 years to take off because it's waiting for a
load of lemon-soaked paper napkins to be loaded. You
On 7 August 2013 17:54, Jon Nelson jnelson+pg...@jamponi.net wrote:
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
Hi all,
I recently tried a simple benchmark to see how far 9.4 had come since
8.4, but I discovered that I couldn't get 9.4 to even touch 8.4 for
performance.
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
On 7 August 2013 17:54, Jon Nelson jnelson+pg...@jamponi.net wrote:
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
Hi all,
I recently tried a simple benchmark to see how far 9.4 had come since
8.4, but I
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I encountered the following assertion failure when I executed
an immediate shutdown.
LOG: received immediate shutdown request
WARNING: terminating connection because of crash of another server process
DETAIL:
Fujii Masao escribió:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
TRAP: FailedAssertion(!(CheckpointerPID == 0), File: postmaster.c,
Line: 3440)
The cause of this problem seems to be that PostmasterStateMachine()
may fail to wait for the checkpointer to
On 7 August 2013 18:49, Jon Nelson jnelson+pg...@jamponi.net wrote:
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
for i in 1 2 5 10 100; do ./test_fallocate foo $i 1; done
method: classic. 1 open/close iterations, 1 rewrite in 0.6380s
method: posix_fallocate. 1 open/close
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2013-07-26 23:47:59 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
If this problem is solved, there is possible of that we can failback
by removing the all
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-08-07 09:40:24 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
I don't think the unlocked increment of nextVictimBuffer is a good idea
though. nextVictimBuffer jumping over NBuffers under concurrency seems
like a recipe for
Bruce,
Actually, for me, motiving reviewers seems like the Lemon-Soaked Paper
Napkins, as it requires unbounded effort and its importance is not being
balanced with other priorities.
Let me be absolutely clear here: You do not think that the work
reviewers do is important at all, and you
Josh,
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote:
Actually, for me, motiving reviewers seems like the Lemon-Soaked Paper
Napkins, as it requires unbounded effort and its importance is not being
balanced with other priorities.
Let me be absolutely clear here: You do not think that the work
On 7 August 2013 17:54, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
On 7 August 2013 17:49, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-08-07 17:21:01 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
Only build option used was --enable-depend. I did have
--enable-cassert for the shorter 5 min benchmarks, but was
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:07:32PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce,
Actually, for me, motiving reviewers seems like the Lemon-Soaked Paper
Napkins, as it requires unbounded effort and its importance is not being
balanced with other priorities.
Let me be absolutely clear here: You do
Bruce,
You are getting into some kind of loop where not wanting to expend
unlimited effort on something means, to you, that the person doesn't
think the goal is important. Effort has to be balanced. This is not
the first time I have seen such loops. And why do you even care about
my
On 08/07/2013 10:35 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Actually, for me, motiving reviewers seems like the Lemon-Soaked Paper
Napkins, as it requires unbounded effort and its importance is not being
balanced with other priorities.
Ignoring the non-productive part of this thread, I would like to
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-08-07 09:40:24 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
I don't think the unlocked increment of nextVictimBuffer is a good idea
though. nextVictimBuffer jumping over NBuffers under concurrency seems
like a recipe for
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:39:01PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce,
You are getting into some kind of loop where not wanting to expend
unlimited effort on something means, to you, that the person doesn't
think the goal is important. Effort has to be balanced. This is not
the first
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 07:26:38AM -0700, David Johnston wrote:
huxm wrote
where there is a
newline(\n) in the name.
I can't imagine why you would want to use non-printing characters in a name,
especially a database name. Even if the hba.conf file was able to interpret
it (which it
On 08/07/2013 04:12 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 07:26:38AM -0700, David Johnston wrote:
huxm wrote
where there is a
newline(\n) in the name.
I can't imagine why you would want to use non-printing characters in a name,
especially a database name. Even if the hba.conf
Well, reviewers on the bottom was just for 9.3 or 9.4, but the final
goal was to get reviewers who modified patches credited with the release
note items. I asked how that was to be accomplished, and suggested that
the only practical way would be for every committer to check the patch
chain
Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
pgbench -j 80 -c 80 -T 3600
269e78: 606.268013
8800d8: 779.583129
As another data point I duplicated Thom's original tests:
max_connections = 500
shared_buffers = 4GB
effective_cache_size = 12GB
random_page_cost = 2.0
cpu_tuple_cost = 0.03
wal_buffers = 32MB
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Tomonari Katsumata
t.katsumata1...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
2013/8/6 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
FWIW I'd rather keep plain promotion for a
Did you report information about the system affected? What filesystem is it
on? If it's ext4 does it have extents enabled?
I think on ext3 or ext4 without extents it won't have any benefit but it
shouldn't really be any slower either since the libc implementation is very
similar to what we used
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
pgbench -j 80 -c 80 -T 3600
269e78: 606.268013
8800d8: 779.583129
I have also been running some tests and - as yet - they are
inconclusive. What I can say about them so far is that - at
On 7 August 2013 23:40, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
Did you report information about the system affected? What filesystem is it
on? If it's ext4 does it have extents enabled?
Yes, ext4. It's using whatever the default options are, but running
lsattr on my data dir shows that extents are
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 01:48:06PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Well, reviewers on the bottom was just for 9.3 or 9.4, but the final
goal was to get reviewers who modified patches credited with the release
note items. I asked how that was to be accomplished, and suggested that
the only
Hi
Has anybody been able to install Pg 9.3 beta .debs on Ubuntu 12.04
when I try to select postgresql-9.3 (9,3~beta2-2.pgdg12.4+1) for
installation I get error saying
...
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
postgresql-9.3 : Depends: postgresql-client-9.3 but it is not going to
be
Michael who?
Blackwell, asssistant CFM for this CF.
9.4 CF1? Where are you recording the names? In the commitfest app?
Right now in a googledoc. The CF app has no such capability now,
although Magnus' new app might in the future.
OK, so the process is independent of commit activity. You
On Wed, Aug 08/07/13, 2013 at 07:29:32PM -0400, Hannu Krosing wrote:
Has anybody been able to install Pg 9.3 beta .debs on Ubuntu 12.04
Yes.
when I try to select postgresql-9.3 (9,3~beta2-2.pgdg12.4+1) for
installation I get error saying
...
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
On 8 August 2013 00:04, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
On 7 August 2013 23:40, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
Did you report information about the system affected? What filesystem is it
on? If it's ext4 does it have extents enabled?
Yes, ext4. It's using whatever the default options are,
On 08/07/2013 05:40 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
On 8 August 2013 00:04, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
On 7 August 2013 23:40, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
Did you report information about the system affected? What filesystem is it
on? If it's ext4 does it have extents enabled?
Yes, ext4.
We have these two error messages:
To make the view updatable, provide an unconditional ON UPDATE DO INSTEAD rule
or an INSTEAD OF UPDATE trigger.
and
To make the view updatable, provide an unconditional ON DELETE DO INSTEAD rule
or an INSTEAD OF DELETE trigger.
I think it's a bit strange to
The new MultiXactId concept appears in a number of user-facing error
messages, including in the scary context of transaction ID wraparound,
so it seems kind of important, but it doesn't appear to be documented in
any user-facing places. Should this be rectified? Maybe some of the
material from
I'm having trouble parsing this:
ERROR: aggregate functions are not allowed in FROM clause of their own query
level
The example in the regression tests is:
-- LATERAL can be used to put an aggregate into the FROM clause of its query
select 1 from tenk1 a, lateral (select max(a.unique1) from
WAL timelines are unsigned 32-bit integers everywhere, except the
replication parser (replication/repl_gram.y and
replication/repl_scanner.l) treats them as signed 32-bit integers. It's
obviously a corner case, but it would be prudent to be correct about
this. It should be easy to fix in those
Hi,
On 2013-08-07 21:25:06 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
The new MultiXactId concept appears in a number of user-facing error
messages, including in the scary context of transaction ID wraparound,
so it seems kind of important, but it doesn't appear to be documented in
any user-facing
On 2013-08-07 20:23:55 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
269e78 was the commit immediately after 8800d8, so it appears that
introduced the regression.
Use posix_fallocate() for new WAL files, where available.
This is curious. Could you either run a longer test before/after the
commit or
On 2013-08-08 06:40:00 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Tomonari Katsumata
t.katsumata1...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
2013/8/6 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Andres Freund
On 08/07/2013 08:19:03 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
We have these two error messages:
To make the view updatable, provide an unconditional ON UPDATE DO
INSTEAD rule or an INSTEAD OF UPDATE trigger.
and
To make the view updatable, provide an unconditional ON DELETE DO
INSTEAD rule or an
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 04:39:49PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
OK, so the process is independent of commit activity. You realize that
if someone significantly modifies a patch we already have them in the
commit message as an author and on the release note item, right? So you
are really
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-08-08 06:40:00 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Tomonari Katsumata
t.katsumata1...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
2013/8/6 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Fujii Masao
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
I'm having trouble parsing this:
ERROR: aggregate functions are not allowed in FROM clause of their own query
level
The example in the regression tests is:
-- LATERAL can be used to put an aggregate into the FROM clause of its query
select 1 from
-Original Message-
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-
ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Merlin Moncure
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 12:09 AM
To: Andres Freund
Cc: PostgreSQL-development; Jeff Janes
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] StrategyGetBuffer
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-08-07 20:23:55 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
269e78 was the commit immediately after 8800d8, so it appears that
introduced the regression.
Use posix_fallocate() for new WAL files, where available.
This is
65 matches
Mail list logo
