Hello. Attached is the 2nd version of 'pushdown in UNION ALL on
partitioned tables' patch type 1 - fix in equiv-member version.
As far as I can see, I have found no problem on the original
Tom's patch. I have no annoyance of modifying inh flag and so
with this.
At Tue, 04 Mar 2014 18:57:56
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Robert Berry berrydigi...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a way to get access to the StrategyControl pointer in the context
of a background worker?
StrategyControl is inherent to freelist.c and has no external
declaration so you could not have it even if you the
Oops! I found a bug in this patch. The previous v8 patch missed
the case that build_index_pathkeys() could build a partial
pathkeys from the index tlist.
This causes the situation follows,
===
=# \d cu11
Table public.cu11
Column | Type | Modifiers
+-+---
a
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Wang, Jing ji...@fast.au.fujitsu.com wrote:
Enclosed is the patch to implement the requirement that issue log message to
suggest VACUUM FULL if a table is nearly empty.
The
Hello. As a minimal implementation, I made an attempt that emit
NOTICE message when alter table affects foreign tables. It looks
like following,
| =# alter table passwd add column added int, add column added2 int;
| NOTICE: This command affects foreign relation cf1
| NOTICE: This command
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
Aside from those details, it seems clear that any reasonably complete
move-extensions-elsewhere feature will need some kind of build system
support. I have various ideas on that and would gladly contribute some
of them, but it's not going to happen
From: Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
If I understand correctly that objection was on changing Default Event
Source name, and the patch now doesn't contain that change, it's
just a bug fix for letting pg_ctl know the non-default event source
set by user.
Please clarify if I misunderstood
On 03/08/2014 01:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
What I'm concerned about is the locking. It looks to me like we're
causing the user to lock rows that they may not intend to lock, by
applying a LockRows step *before* the user supplied qual. (I'm going to
test
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
* The jsonb_hash_ops non-default GIN opclass is broken. It has its own
idiosyncratic notion of what constitutes containment, that sees it
only return, say, jsonb arrays that have a matching string as their
leftmost
Hi,
Arrangements have been made to hold a meeting between database and kernel
developers at Collaboration Summit 2014 http://sched.co/1hEBRuq on March
27th 2014. This was organised after discussions on pain points encountered
by the PostgreSQL community. Originally the plan had been to just have
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.com wrote:
I din't get comment about leftmost element. There is absolutely no
distinguish between array elements. All elements are extracted into same
keys independent of their indexes. It seems to have no change since I wrote
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
I don't have time to post that at the moment, but offhand I *think*
your confusion may be due to the fact that the json_hash_ops opclass
(as I call it) was previously consistent with the behavior of the
other GIN opclass
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
Sorry, I realize now that that must be incorrect. Still, please take a
look at the commit linked to.
To be clear, I mean that my explanation of why this was missed before
was incorrect, not my contention that it's a problem
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.com wrote:
I din't get comment about leftmost element. There is absolutely no
distinguish between array elements. All elements are extracted into same
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:47 AM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.com wrote:
Fix is attached.
Could you post a patch with regression tests, please?
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:47 AM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.com wrote:
Fix is attached.
Could you post a patch with regression tests, please?
Here it is.
--
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.
Hi,
thanks for the continued review.
On 09/03/14 12:15, Amit Kapila wrote:
1.
ISTM that you should be printing just the value and the unique index
there, and not any information about the tuple proper.
Good point, I will have a look at this.
This point is still not handled in patch,
Hi all,
I have been playing a bit with the replication slots, and I noticed a
weird behavior in such a scenario:
1) Create a master/slave cluster, and have slave use a replication slot
2) Stop the master
3) Create a certain amount of WAL, during my tests I played with 4~5GB of WAL
4) Restart the
On 10 March 2014 03:36, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I've found an issue with updatable security barrier views. Locking is
being pushed down into the subquery. Locking is thus applied before
user-supplied quals are, so we potentially lock too many rows.
I'm looking into the code
Hi,
On 2014-03-10 21:06:53 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
I have been playing a bit with the replication slots, and I noticed a
weird behavior in such a scenario:
1) Create a master/slave cluster, and have slave use a replication slot
2) Stop the master
3) Create a certain amount of WAL,
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Hi,
On 2014-03-10 21:06:53 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
I have been playing a bit with the replication slots, and I noticed a
weird behavior in such a scenario:
1) Create a master/slave cluster, and have slave use
Hello
I had to migrate our databases from 9.1 to 9.2. We have high number of
databases per cluster (more than 1000) and high number of tables (indexes)
per database (sometimes more than 10K, exceptionally more than 100K).
I seen two problems:
a) too long files pg_upgrade_dump_db.sql,
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
The big picture here is that in the scenario being debated in the other
thread, exit() in a child process forked from a backend will execute that
backend's on_detach actions *even if the code had done on_exit_reset after
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Agreed. Amit, do you have the test setup at hand, can you check the
performance of this one more time?
Are you expecting more performance numbers than I have posted?
Is there anything more left for patch which you
Robert Berry berrydigi...@gmail.com writes:
I'm looking at doing a calculation to determine the number of free buffers
available. A n example ratio that is based on some data structures in
freelist.c as follows:
(StrategyControl-lastFreeBuffer - StrategyControl-firstFreeBuffer) /
(double)
Tomonari Katsumata katsumata.tomon...@po.ntts.co.jp writes:
Adding FATAL and PANIC to client_min_messages is done at below-commit.
8ac386226d76b29a9f54c26b157e04e9b8368606
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=8ac386226d76b29a9f54c26b157e04e9b8368606
According to the
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
Hello, I've understood how this works and seems working as
expected.
The orphan section handles on postmaster have become a
On 03/10/2014 05:18 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
OK, it sounds like the adjustments are minimal, like not using the
high-order bit.
Attached patch is a refinement of the work of Oleg, Teodor and Andrew.
Revisions are mostly
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm. So the problematic sequence of events is where a postmaster
child forks, and then exits without exec-ing, perhaps because e.g.
exec fails?
I've attempted a fix for this
Hi
2014-03-10 23:45 GMT+09:00 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Tomonari Katsumata katsumata.tomon...@po.ntts.co.jp writes:
Adding FATAL and PANIC to client_min_messages is done at below-commit.
8ac386226d76b29a9f54c26b157e04e9b8368606
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I took a look at this patch. It seems to me that it doesn't do a very
good job maintaining the abstraction boundary between what the dsm.c
layer knows about and what the dsm_impl.c layer knows about. However,
AFAICS,
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I took a look at this patch. It seems to me that it doesn't do a very
good job maintaining the abstraction boundary between what the dsm.c
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello
I had to migrate our databases from 9.1 to 9.2. We have high number of
databases per cluster (more than 1000) and high number of tables (indexes)
per database (sometimes more than 10K, exceptionally more than
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I took a look at this patch. It seems to me that it doesn't do a
Rajeev rastogi rajeev.rast...@huawei.com writes:
On 12th December 2013, Rajeev Rastogi Wrote:
On 9th December, Amit Khandelkar wrote:
But copystream can be different than pset.cur_cmd_source , right ?
As per the earlier code, condition result was always true. So pset.lineno
was always
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 09:54:36AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello
I had to migrate our databases from 9.1 to 9.2. We have high number of
databases per cluster (more than 1000) and high number of
There were several bottlenecks in this area removed in 9.2 and 9.3.
Unfortunately the worst of those bottlenecks were in the server, so they
depend
on what database you are upgrading from, and so won't help you much
upgrading
from 9.1.
Yes, I assume 9.3 will be much better, though
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I've attached a new version of the walsender patch. It's been rebased
ontop of Heikki's latest commit to walsender.c. I've changed a fair bit
of stuff:
* The sleeptime is now computed to sleep until we either need to
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Christian Kruse
christ...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
[ response to review ]
This response seems to have made no mention of point #7 from Amit's
review, which seems to me to be a rather important one.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
What the $directory proposal achieves is allowing a fully relocatable
extension layout, where you just have to drop a directory anywhere in
the file system and it just works (*).
If that's what you want (and it sounds
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 07:40:42PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
There were several bottlenecks in this area removed in 9.2 and 9.3.
Unfortunately the worst of those bottlenecks were in the server, so they
depend
on what database you are upgrading from, and so won't
2014-03-10 20:11 GMT+01:00 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 07:40:42PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
There were several bottlenecks in this area removed in 9.2 and 9.3.
Unfortunately the worst of those bottlenecks were in the server,
so they
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm. So the problematic sequence of events is where a postmaster
child forks, and then exits without
Robert Haas escribió:
I've committed this patch now with a few further tweaks, leaving this
issue unaddressed. It may well be something that needs improvement,
but I don't think it's a big enough issue to justify holding back a
commit.
Hmm, is the buildfarm exercising any of this?
--
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Robert Haas escribió:
I've committed this patch now with a few further tweaks, leaving this
issue unaddressed. It may well be something that needs improvement,
but I don't think it's a big enough issue to justify
Hi,
On 2014-03-10 16:33:33 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Robert Haas escribió:
I've committed this patch now with a few further tweaks, leaving this
issue unaddressed. It may well be something that needs improvement,
but I don't think it's a big enough issue to justify holding back a
On 03/10/2014 11:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I've committed this patch now with a few further tweaks, leaving this
issue unaddressed. It may well be something that needs improvement,
but I don't think it's a big enough issue to justify holding back a
commit.
Wait, does this mean Changesets is
On 2014-03-10 12:38:42 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 03/10/2014 11:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I've committed this patch now with a few further tweaks, leaving this
issue unaddressed. It may well be something that needs improvement,
but I don't think it's a big enough issue to justify holding
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
When GIN changes a metapage, we WAL-log its ex-header content and never use a
backup block. This reduces WAL volume since the vast majority of the metapage
is unused. However, ginRedoUpdateMetapage() only restores the
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
What the $directory proposal achieves is allowing a fully relocatable
extension layout, where you just have to drop a directory anywhere in
the file system and it just works
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 03/10/2014 11:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I've committed this patch now with a few further tweaks, leaving this
issue unaddressed. It may well be something that needs improvement,
but I don't think it's a big enough issue
I wrote:
Also, I'm thinking we should back-patch the aspects of the patch
needed to fix the wrong-line-number issue. That appears to have been
introduced in 9.2; older versions of PG get the above example right.
I've done that. For reference' sake, here's an updated patch against
HEAD with
All students and mentors (and backup mentors) should now register to
this year's GSoC. Students only have until Friday next week (up until
21st March 19:00 UTC) to apply.
Thanks
Thom
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
Robert Haas escribió:
A related point that's been bugging me for a while, and has just
struck me again, is that background workers for which
BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS is not passed probably ought to be detaching
shared memory (and DSMs). Currently, and since Alvaro originally
added the
Thank you both for the thoughtful and helpful responses.
The utility of the length of the free list is somewhat dubious. I imagine
it could be useful to answer the question of is there a chance that
increasing shared buffers would be useless? in an optimization context.
Agreed it's not useful
On 03/10/2014 12:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 03/10/2014 11:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I've committed this patch now with a few further tweaks, leaving this
issue unaddressed. It may well be something that needs improvement,
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 03/10/2014 12:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 03/10/2014 11:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I've committed this patch now with a few further tweaks, leaving
Robert Haas escribió:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Robert Haas escribió:
I've committed this patch now with a few further tweaks, leaving this
issue unaddressed. It may well be something that needs improvement,
but I don't think it's a
On 03/10/2014 02:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Yeah, that's my thoughts. Although I might wait for recvlogical. Will
put documentation wordsmithing on my todo list once Andres commits.
Is this your way of announcing that
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-02-16 21:26:47 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I don't really know about cpu_tuple_cost. Kevin's often
advocated raising it, but I haven't heard anyone else advocate
for that. I think we need data points from more people to know
whether or not
Hi,
On 10/03/14 14:59, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Christian Kruse
christ...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
[ response to review ]
This response seems to have made no mention of point #7 from Amit's
review, which seems to me to be a rather important one.
Just didn't
On 03/10/2014 03:16 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I only have anecdotal evidence, though. I have seen it help dozens
of times, and have yet to see it hurt. That said, most people on
this list are probably capable of engineering a benchmark which
will show whichever result they would prefer. I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I am probably missing something obvious, but why does the
AccessShareLock remain held on a table after a SELECT statement is
complete when in a transaction block? E.g.:
8-
create table t1 ();
begin;
select * from t1;
select
On 03/10/2014 10:50 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Thanks for your work on this.
It's just occurred to me that we'll need to add hstore_to_jsonb
functions and a cast to match the hstore_to_json functions and cast.
That should be fairly simple - I'll work on that. It need not hold up
progress
Gurjeet Singh wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Gurjeet Singh gurj...@singh.im writes:
I was looking for ways to reduce the noise in Postgres make output,
specifically, I wanted to eliminate the Nothing to be done for `all'
messages, since
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 08:12:20PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Remember pg_upgrade is using pg_dump, which then connecting to a
backend, so passing that super-lock mode there is not ideal. The fixes
in 9.3 improve locking in all user cases, not just upgrades.
nice
FYI, the
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 4:19 AM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.com wrote:
Here it is.
So it looks like what you have here is analogous to the other problems
that I fixed with both GiST and GIN. That isn't surprising, and this
does fix my test-case. I'm not terribly happy about the lack of
Fabrízio de Royes Mello escribió:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
I am reworking this patch, both to accomodate earlier review comments
and to fix the multiple verify step of namespaces, as noted by Tom in
4530.1390023...@sss.pgh.pa.us
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Looks good, committed. However, I changed it so that
dsm_keep_segment() does not also perform the equivalent of
dsm_keep_mapping(); those are two separate operations.
So are you expecting that if some one needs to
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:39 PM, MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
If I understand correctly that objection was on changing Default Event
Source name, and the patch now doesn't contain that change, it's
just a bug fix for letting pg_ctl know the
Joe Conway m...@joeconway.com writes:
I am probably missing something obvious, but why does the
AccessShareLock remain held on a table after a SELECT statement is
complete when in a transaction block?
*Any* lock acquired by user command is held till end of transaction;
AccessShareLock isn't
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Haribabu Kommi
kommi.harib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Wang, Jing ji...@fast.au.fujitsu.com
wrote:
Enclosed is the patch to implement the requirement that
Hi,
Can someone confirm is this really an issue? or any reasons for missing
rows?
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Prakash Itnal prakash...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Recently we observed below errors while taking dump after upgrading from
9.0.13 to 9.1.9.
pg_dump: schema with OID 0 does not
(2014/03/09 1:49), Fabien COELHO wrote:
Hello Mitsumasa-san,
New \setrandom interface is here.
\setrandom var min max [gaussian threshold | exponential threshold]
Attached patch realizes this interface, but it has little bit ugly codeing in
executeStatement() and process_commands()..
I
Hello,
This seems far better than silently performing the command,
except for the duplicated message:( New bitmap might required to
avoid the duplication..
I rewrote it in more tidy way. ATController collects all affected
tables on ATRewriteCatalogs as first stage, then emit NOTICE
message
(2014/03/11 14:07), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
This seems far better than silently performing the command,
except for the duplicated message:( New bitmap might required to
avoid the duplication..
I rewrote it in more tidy way. ATController collects all affected
tables on ATRewriteCatalogs as
76 matches
Mail list logo
