On 02/16/2014 10:19 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 1/24/14, 3:52 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Bruce Momjianbr...@momjian.us wrote:
Is everyone else OK with this approach? Updated patch attached.
Hi,
I started to look at this patch and i found that it fails an
Hi Robert,
On 2014-02-17 20:31:34 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
1. How safe is it to try to do decoding inside of a regular backend?
What we're doing here is entering a special mode where we forbid the
use of regular snapshots in favor of requiring the use of decoding
snapshots, and forbid access
On 2014-02-17 21:10:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
1. How safe is it to try to do decoding inside of a regular backend?
What we're doing here is entering a special mode where we forbid the
use of regular snapshots in favor of requiring the use of
On 2014-02-17 18:49:59 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
What I actually suspect is going to happen if we ship this as-is is
that people are going to start building logical replication solutions
on top of the
On 2014-02-17 21:35:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
What
I don't understand is why we're not taking the test_decoding module,
polishing it up a little to produce some nice, easily
machine-parseable output, calling it basic_decoding, and shipping
that. Then people who want something else can
From: Shigeru Hanada [mailto:shigeru.han...@gmail.com]
2014-02-10 21:00 GMT+09:00 Etsuro Fujita fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp:
(2014/02/07 21:31), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
So, I've modified the patch so
that we continue to disallow SET STORAGE on a foreign table *in the
same manner as
Hello,
2014-02-10 21:00 GMT+09:00 Etsuro Fujita fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp:
(2014/02/07 21:31), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
So, I've modified the patch so
that we continue to disallow SET STORAGE on a foreign table *in the same
manner as before*, but, as your patch does, allow it on an
This patch is in Waiting for Author for a couple of weeks and has
received a review at least from Andres during this commit fest. As the
situation is not much progressing, I am going to mark it as Returned
with feedback.
If there are any problems with that please let me know.
Thanks,
--
Michael
(2014/02/17 21:44), Rajeev rastogi wrote:
It got compiled successfully on Windows.
Thank you for checking on Windows! It is very helpful for me.
Can we allow to add three statistics? I think only adding stdev is difficult to
image for user. But if there are min and max, we can image each
From: Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com
You mentioned a hang during a B-Tree insert operation - do you happen
to have a backtrace that relates to that?
Sorry, I may have misunderstood. The three stack traces I attached are not
related to btree. I recall that I saw one stack trace containing
From: Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
On 2014-02-18 01:35:52 +0900, MauMau wrote:
For example, please see the max latencies of test set 2 (PG 9.3) and test
set 4 (xlog scaling with padding). They are 207.359 and 1219.422
respectively. The throughput is of course greatly improved, but I
On 2014-02-18 20:49:06 +0900, MauMau wrote:
From: Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
On 2014-02-18 01:35:52 +0900, MauMau wrote:
For example, please see the max latencies of test set 2 (PG 9.3) and test
set 4 (xlog scaling with padding). They are 207.359 and 1219.422
respectively. The
Hello
2014-02-17 22:14 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
Hello
2014-02-17 18:10 GMT+01:00 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com:
Jeevan Chalke escribió:
I don't understand this code. (Well, it's pg_dump.) Or maybe I do
understand it, and it's not doing what you think
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 02/04/2014 07:28 PM, MauMau wrote:
Please don't mind, I didn't misunderstand your intent. I think we
should apply this in the next minor release to avoid unnecessary
confusion -- more new users would use
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:06 PM, MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Rajeev rastogi rajeev.rast...@huawei.com
I will update commitFest with the latest patch immediately after sending
the mail.
OK, done setting the status to ready for committer.
We already have two different versions
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
I've applied this and backpatched to 9.3 and 9.2, which is as far back as
it goes cleanly.
In 9.1 the build system looked significantly different, which makes it
strange since the original report in this thread was about 9.1 but the
patch supplied
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes:
Could you guess any use cases in which we are happy with ALTER
TABLE's inheritance tree walking? IMHO, ALTER FOREIGN TABLE
always comes with some changes of the data source so implicitly
invoking of such commands should be defaultly
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
I've applied this and backpatched to 9.3 and 9.2, which is as far back as
it goes cleanly.
In 9.1 the build system looked significantly different, which makes it
strange since
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
We already know that the uuid-ossp extension doesn't build OS X unless a
small patch is applied.
This has now gotten slightly worse after the Autoconf upgrade, because
it will now fail if a header is present but cannot
From: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net
We already have two different versions of make_absolute_path() in the tree
- one in src/backend/utils/init/miscinit.c and one in
src/test/regress/pg_regress.c.
I don't think we need a third one.
If we put it in port/ like this patch done, then we
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
We already know that the uuid-ossp extension doesn't build OS X unless a
small patch is applied.
This has now gotten slightly worse after the Autoconf upgrade, because
it will
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:49 AM, MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
On 2014-02-18 01:35:52 +0900, MauMau wrote:
For example, please see the max latencies of test set 2 (PG 9.3) and test
set 4 (xlog scaling with padding). They are 207.359 and
From: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net
Unfortunately we missed the releases that have just been wrapped.
It's really unfortunate... I hope the next minor release will be soon.
I've applied this and backpatched to 9.3 and 9.2, which is as far back as
it goes cleanly.
Thank you.
In 9.1
On 02/18/2014 06:27 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:49 AM, MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
--- or in other words, greater variance in response times. With my simple
understanding, that sounds like a problem for response-sensitive users.
If you need the throughput provided
On 02/17/2014 10:36 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-02-17 22:30:54 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
This is what I came up with. I like it, I didn't have to contort lwlocks as
much as I feared. I added one field to LWLock structure, which is used to
store the position of how far a WAL inserter
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Add a GUC to report whether data page checksums are enabled.
Is there are reason this wasn't back-patched to 9.3? I think it should
be.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services
--
Sent
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Is there are reason this wasn't back-patched to 9.3? I think it should
be.
+1.
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On 02/18/2014 09:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Add a GUC to report whether data page checksums are enabled.
Is there are reason this wasn't back-patched to 9.3? I think it should
be.
I considered it a new feature, so not back-patching was the default. If
you want
On 2014-02-18 22:23:59 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 02/18/2014 09:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Add a GUC to report whether data page checksums are enabled.
Is there are reason this wasn't back-patched to 9.3? I think it should
be.
Thirded.
I considered
On 2014-02-18 19:12:32 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
You're missing MauMau's point. In essence, he's comparing two systems with
the same number of clients, issuing queries as fast as they can, and one can
do 2000 TPS while the other one can do 1 TPS. You would expect the
On 2014-02-18 08:35:35 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-02-17 23:07:45 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
I don't think this really
On 02/18/2014 10:51 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-02-18 19:12:32 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's because of the extra checkpoints. If you look
at the individual test graphs, there are clear spikes in latency, but the
latency is otherwise small. With a higher
On 2014-02-17 10:44:41 +0100, Christian Kruse wrote:
This is true for now. But one of the purposes of using
LocalPgBackendStatus instead of PgBackendStatus was to be able to add
more fields like this in future. And thus we might need to change this
in future, so why not do it now?
I don't
On 2014-02-18 23:01:08 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 02/18/2014 10:51 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-02-18 19:12:32 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's because of the extra checkpoints. If you look
at the individual test graphs, there are clear spikes in
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com
wrote:
On 02/18/2014 06:27 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:49 AM, MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
--- or in other words, greater variance in response times. With my
simple
understanding, that
I wrote:
dig...@126.com writes:
select t, t::bytea from convert_from('\xeec1', 'sql_ascii') as g(t);
[ fails to check that string is valid in database encoding ]
Hm, yeah. Normal input to the database goes through pg_any_to_server(),
which will apply a validation step if the source encoding
I wrote:
I looked through all the callers of pg_do_encoding_conversion(), and
AFAICS this change is a good idea. There are a whole bunch of places
that use pg_do_encoding_conversion() to convert from the database encoding
to encoding X (most usually UTF8), and right now if you do that in a
Hello,
At Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:49:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes:
Could you guess any use cases in which we are happy with ALTER
TABLE's inheritance tree walking? IMHO, ALTER FOREIGN TABLE
always comes with some changes of the data source
(2014/02/12 15:31), Inoue, Hiroshi wrote:
(2014/02/12 3:03), Tom Lane wrote:
Hiroshi Inoue in...@tpf.co.jp writes:
(2014/02/09 8:06), Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Yeah. Incidentally, we didn't quite get rid of dlltool for Cygwin. We
did get rid of dllwrap. But I agree this is worth trying for Mingw.
I've had multiple complaints of apparent data loss on 9.3.2 customer
databases. There are 2 total, both complaints from the past week, one
of which I was able to confirm. The customer's complaint is that
certain rows are either visible or invisible, depending on whether an
index scan is used or a
Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I've had multiple complaints of apparent data loss on 9.3.2 customer
databases. There are 2 total, both complaints from the past week, one
of which I was able to confirm. The customer's complaint is that
certain rows are either visible or invisible, depending on whether
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The multixact bugs would cause tuples to be hidden at the heap level.
If the tuples are visible in a seqscan, then these are more likely to be
related to index problems, not multixact problem.
That was my first
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
That was my first suspicion, but then re-indexing didn't help, while
VACUUM FREEZE had the immediate effect of making both plans give a
consistent answer.
I should add that this is an unremarkable int4 primary key (which
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I've had multiple complaints of apparent data loss on 9.3.2 customer
databases. There are 2 total, both complaints from the past week, one
of which I was able to confirm. The customer's
Hello,
At Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:24:50 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote
From: Shigeru Hanada [mailto:shigeru.han...@gmail.com]
2014-02-10 21:00 GMT+09:00 Etsuro Fujita fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp:
(2014/02/07 21:31), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
So, I've modified the patch so
that we continue to
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Christian Kruse
christ...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Hi,
On 02/01/14 10:02, Andres Freund wrote:
Christian's idea of a context line seems plausible to me. I don't
care for this implementation too much --- a global variable? Ick.
Yea, the data should be stored
Hi Horiguchi-san,
2014-02-18 19:29 GMT+09:00 Kyotaro HORIGUCHI horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp:
Could you guess any use cases in which we are happy with ALTER
TABLE's inheritance tree walking? IMHO, ALTER FOREIGN TABLE
always comes with some changes of the data source so implicitly
invoking
47 matches
Mail list logo
