2014-10-29 12:23 GMT+01:00 Szymon Guz mabew...@gmail.com:
On 17 October 2014 09:01, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Szymon
I found a small bug - it doesn't escape | well
postgres=# select * from mytab ;
a | numeric_b | c
--+---+
Thanks for your input, Jim!
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
Patch applies against current HEAD and builds, but I'm getting 37 failed
tests (mostly parallel, but also misc and WITH; results attached). Is that
expected?
This is caused by the recent
On 29 October 2014 13:04, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
suggestions. If the user does not have table-level SELECT rights,
they'll see for the Failing row contains
On 30 October 2014 09:04, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-10-29 12:23 GMT+01:00 Szymon Guz mabew...@gmail.com:
On 17 October 2014 09:01, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Szymon
I found a small bug - it doesn't escape | well
postgres=# select * from
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Rajeev rastogi
rajeev.rast...@huawei.com wrote:
On 26 October 2014 10:42, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
I have a question regarding setting of key flags matched. Only the
first key was set as matched even if we have multiple index conditions.
Is there any reason
On 30 October 2014 04:24, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
Locking the toast table of any main tables we access seems easily
done. Though perhaps we should make weak locking of the toast table
presumed. Do we have cases where the toast table can be accessed when
the main table is
At 2014-09-29 11:54:10 +0200, and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-09-29 14:09:01 +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
I just noticed that initdb -S (Safely write all database files to disk
and exit) does (only) the following in perform_fsync:
pre_sync_fname(pdir, true);
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
Dne 29 Říjen 2014, 12:31, Petr Jelinek napsal(a):
I've not really gotten around to looking at the patch yet, but I'm also
wondering if it would be simple include allowing functional statistics
too. The pg_mv_statistic name
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
Dne 29 Říjen 2014, 10:41, David Rowley napsal(a):
I'm quite interested in reviewing your work on this, but it appears that
some of your changes are not C89:
src\backend\commands\analyze.c(3774): error C2057: expected
2014-10-30 9:30 GMT+01:00 Szymon Guz mabew...@gmail.com:
On 30 October 2014 09:04, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-10-29 12:23 GMT+01:00 Szymon Guz mabew...@gmail.com:
On 17 October 2014 09:01, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Szymon
I found a small
Hello,
At Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:05:20 -0400, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote in
20141028130520.gl28...@tamriel.snowman.net
As well, the
originally proposed RoleId_or_curruser suffers from the same issue. I'm
going to go out on a limb here, but is it not possible to consider
Dne 30 Říjen 2014, 10:17, David Rowley napsal(a):
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
Dne 29 Říjen 2014, 12:31, Petr Jelinek napsal(a):
I've not really gotten around to looking at the patch yet, but I'm
also
wondering if it would be simple include allowing
(2014/10/09 11:49), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2014/10/08 22:51), Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Etsuro Fujita
fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:15
On 2014-10-30 10:23:56 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
I have a feeling that this might also have some regression at higher
loads (like scale_factor = 5000, shared_buffers = 8GB,
client_count = 128, 256) for the similar reasons as bgreclaimer patch,
means although both reduces contention around spin
Le mercredi 29 octobre 2014 14:16:23 Demai Ni a écrit :
Robert and Ronan,
many thanks for your response.
I realized there is no clean way/api for it. maybe a hacking of ptree can
do the trick.. :-)
I will also take a look at IMPORT FOREIGN SCHEMA. However, for this
requirement, I still
Dear
I'm doing a job about converting an expression of one data type to another.In
SQLServer, there'are two functions to do this job.
1. CAST ( expression AS data_type [ ( length ) ] )2. CONVERT ( data_type [ (
length ) ] , expression )
However, In PostgreSQL, there's only the CAST ( expression
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
But if it is, then how about
adding a flag that is 4 bytes wide or less alongside bgwriterLatch,
and just checking the flag instead of checking bgwriterLatch itself?
Yea, that'd be nicer. I didn't do it because it
On 2014-10-21 12:40:56 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
While doing performance tests, I noticed a hang at higher client
counts with patch. I have tried to check call stack for few of
processes and it is as below:
#0 0x008010933e54 in .semop () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#1 0x10286e48 in
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Etsuro Fujita
fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
(2014/10/09 11:49), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2014/10/08 22:51), Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Etsuro Fujita
fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Alvaro
Thanks for your review! (No worries for creating a new thread, I don't
mind as this is not a huge patch. I think you could have downloaded
the mbox from postgresql.org btw).
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
SyncRepGetSynchronousNode():
IMHO, the top comment
I think you're looking for the pgsql-general mailing list. This list is
for PostgreSQL extensions and core database engine software development.
On 10/30/2014 07:44 PM, rohtodeveloper wrote:
Dear
I'm doing a job about converting an expression of one data type to another.
In SQLServer,
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-10-21 12:40:56 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
While doing performance tests, I noticed a hang at higher client
counts with patch. I have tried to check call stack for few of
processes and it is as below:
#0
On 10/03/2014 06:29 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 10/03/2014 05:26 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-10-03 17:12:18 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 09/28/2014 01:54 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
0003 Sinval/notify processing got simplified further. There really isn't
any need for
On 2014-10-30 18:54:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-10-21 12:40:56 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
I have ran it for half an hour, but it doesn't came out even after
~2 hours. It doesn't get reproduced every
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-10-30 18:54:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Hm. What commit did you apply the series ontop? I managed to
reproduce a
hang, but
On 2014-10-30 15:27:13 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
The comment on PGPROC.procLatch in storage/proc.h says just this:
Latch procLatch; /* generic latch for process */
This needs a lot more explaining. It's now used by signal handlers to
interrupt a read or
On 2014-10-30 19:05:06 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-10-30 18:54:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Hm. What commit did you apply
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Marti Raudsepp ma...@juffo.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
create_index_if_not_exists_v7.patch
Looks
Hi,
I've just once more looked at the WAL stream ans was briefly confused
about all the XLOG_FPI records. Since 54685338e3
log_newpage/log_newpage_buffer and XLogSaveBufferForHint() use the same
WAL record. I personally find that a bad idea because they're used in
quite different situations.
Can
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Dilip kumar dilip.ku...@huawei.com
wrote:
On 12 September 2014 14:34, Amit Kapila Wrote
Please find updated patch to include those documentation changes.
Looks fine, Moved
Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes:
Ick; I concur with your judgment on those aspects of the IPC::Cmd design.
Thanks for investigating. So, surviving options include:
1. Require IPC::Run.
2. Write our own run() that reports the raw exit code.
3. Distill the raw exit code from the
On 2014-10-30 01:57:15 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 08:14:07PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 10/28/14 9:09 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I have looked into IPC::Cmd, but the documentation keeps telling me that
to do anything interesting I have to have IPC::Run
On 2014-10-29 10:24:20 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 10/06/2014 02:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-10-06 14:19:39 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Barring objections, I'll commit this, and then continue benchmarking the
second patch with the WAL format and API changes.
I'd like to
I wrote:
Yup, you read that right, it took 32 seconds to run those dozen utterly
trivial tests. As far as I could tell by eyeball, pretty much all of the
time went into test 11, which is odd since it seems not significantly
different from the others. I think there's something wacky about
A colleague at EnterpriseDB today ran into a situation on PostgreSQL
9.3.5 where the server went into an infinite loop while attempting a
VACUUM FREEZE; it couldn't escape _bt_getstackbuf(), and it couldn't
be killed with ^C. I think we should add a check for interrupts into
that loop somewhere;
On 10/30/2014 06:02 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-10-29 10:24:20 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 10/06/2014 02:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
I've not yet really looked,
but on a quick readthrough XLogInsertRecData() staying in xlog.c doesn't
make me happy...
Ok.. Can you elaborate?
To
+ acronymBRIN/acronym indexes can satisfy queries via the bitmap
+ scanning facility, and will return all tuples in all pages within
The bitmap scanning facility? Does this mean a bitmap index scan?
Or something novel to BRIN? I think this could be clearer.
+ This enables them to work as
Kyotaro,
Zero-length identifiers are rejected in scanner so RoleId cannot
be a valid pointer to a zero-length string. (NULL is used as
PUBLIC in auth_ident)
| postgres=# create role ;
| ERROR: zero-length delimited identifier at or near
| postgres=# create role U\00;
| ERROR: invalid
Robert Haas wrote:
A colleague at EnterpriseDB today ran into a situation on PostgreSQL
9.3.5 where the server went into an infinite loop while attempting a
VACUUM FREEZE; it couldn't escape _bt_getstackbuf(), and it couldn't
be killed with ^C. I think we should add a check for interrupts
This is slight off topic but please bear with me.
I came across this post:
http://pauleveritt.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/faster-relevance-ranking-didnt-make-it-into-postgresql-9-4/
I was curious about it so I checked several commit fest pages and searched
the mailing lists but I wasn't able to
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
I would tend not to worry too much about this case. I'm skeptical
that there are a lot of people using large template databases. But
if there are, or if some particular one of those people hits this
problem, then they can raise
On 2014-10-30 14:51:54 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
I would tend not to worry too much about this case. I'm skeptical
that there are a lot of people using large template databases. But
if there are, or if some particular one of
Arthur Silva wrote:
This is slight off topic but please bear with me.
I came across this post:
http://pauleveritt.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/faster-relevance-ranking-didnt-make-it-into-postgresql-9-4/
I was curious about it so I checked several commit fest pages and searched
the mailing lists
* Adam Brightwell (adam.brightw...@crunchydatasolutions.com) wrote:
| RoleId_or_curruser: RoleId{ $$ = $1; }
| | CURRENT_USER { $$ = \x00\x01;};
[...]
This is ugly but needs no additional struct member or special
logics. (Macros could make
On 10/30/2014 08:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
I would tend not to worry too much about this case. I'm skeptical
that there are a lot of people using large template databases. But
if there are, or if some particular one of those
On 10/30/2014 08:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
I actually think we should *always* use the new code and not
add a separate wal_level=minimal branch. Maintaining this twice just
isn't worth the effort. minimal is used *far* less these days.
I wouldn't go that far. Doing the wal_level=minimal
Hi,
On 2014-09-15 15:41:22 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
The second patch contains the interesting changes.
Heikki's pushed the newest version of this to the git tree.
Some things I noticed while reading the patch:
* potential mismerge:
+++ b/src/bin/pg_basebackup/pg_receivexlog.c
@@ -408,7
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Robert Haas wrote:
A colleague at EnterpriseDB today ran into a situation on PostgreSQL
9.3.5 where the server went into an infinite loop while attempting a
VACUUM FREEZE; it couldn't escape _bt_getstackbuf(), and it couldn't
be killed with ^C.
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
The other idea which comes to mind is- could we try to actually resolve
what the 'right' answer is here, instead of setting a special value and
then having to detect and fix it later?
No, absolutely not. Read the NOTES at the head of gram.y. Or if you
Adam Brightwell adam.brightw...@crunchydatasolutions.com writes:
FWIW, I found the following in the archives:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/15516.1038718...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Now this is from 2002 and it appears it wasn't necessary to change at the
time, but I haven't yet found anything
I wrote:
Yup, you read that right, it took 32 seconds to run those dozen utterly
trivial tests. As far as I could tell by eyeball, pretty much all of the
time went into test 11, which is odd since it seems not significantly
different from the others. I think there's something wacky about
Hi,
while preparing an overview of features new in 9.4, I noticed that while
we provide NOWAIT for the ALTER ... ALL IN TABLESPACE commands, we
don't support that for the 'single object' case. Is that on purpose? I
assume it makes, as with a single object you can't get stuck half-way
through, but
On 10/30/14, 3:19 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com
mailto:jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
Patch applies against current HEAD and builds, but I'm getting 37 failed
tests (mostly parallel, but also misc and WITH; results attached).
On 10/30/14, 3:19 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Thanks for your input, Jim!
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com
mailto:jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
Patch applies against current HEAD and builds, but I'm getting 37 failed
tests (mostly parallel, but also misc
On 10/30/2014 05:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
Yup, you read that right, it took 32 seconds to run those dozen utterly
trivial tests. As far as I could tell by eyeball, pretty much all of the
time went into test 11, which is odd since it seems not significantly
different from the others. I
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 10/30/2014 05:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Anyway, I can confirm Peter's statement that the current tests work even
on quite old platforms, as long as you install IPC::Run.
So, I'm a bit confused. Is the --enable-tap-tests config setting still
on the
On 10/30/14, 8:05 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
This switches from using a single if() with multiple conditions 'd
together to a bunch of if() continue's. I don't know if those will perform
the same, and AFAIK this is pretty performance critical.
Well, we could still use the old notation with a
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
That's true. I don't know what to do about it. I'm somewhat inclined
to think that, if this remains in contrib, it's OK to ignore those
issues until such time as people complain about them, because anybody
who
On 10/30/14, 4:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 10/30/2014 05:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Anyway, I can confirm Peter's statement that the current tests work even
on quite old platforms, as long as you install IPC::Run.
So, I'm a bit confused. Is the
Tomas Vondra wrote
Also, the current phrasing If the NOWAIT option is specified then the
command will fail if it is unable to acquire all of the locks required
immediately. seems a bit ambiguous to me. Maybe it's just me, but I
wasn't sure if that means locks for all objects immediately,
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com writes:
On 10/30/14, 4:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I think it should be. You should not have to have either prove or
IPC::Run (or, IIRC, even Perl) in order to do make check-world.
Could configure detect if we have IPC::Run? ISTM it'd be nice to make this
On 10/30/14, 2:13 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 10/30/2014 08:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
I actually think we should *always* use the new code and not
add a separate wal_level=minimal branch. Maintaining this twice just
isn't worth the effort. minimal is used *far* less these days.
I
On 10/30/14, 5:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com writes:
On 10/30/14, 4:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I think it should be. You should not have to have either prove or
IPC::Run (or, IIRC, even Perl) in order to do make check-world.
Could configure detect if we have
Hi,
On 2014-10-30 18:03:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
That's true. I don't know what to do about it. I'm somewhat inclined
to think that, if this remains in contrib, it's OK to ignore those
issues until such time
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com writes:
If our policy is that tests are there primarily for developers then I agree
with you.
If not, then would we be OK with make check being a no-op unless you'd
configured with --enable-make-check?
Making this something you have to enable will
On 2014-10-30 18:06:02 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 10/30/14, 2:13 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 10/30/2014 08:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
I actually think we should *always* use the new code and not
add a separate wal_level=minimal branch. Maintaining this twice just
isn't worth the effort.
On 2014-10-30 19:30:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com writes:
If our policy is that tests are there primarily for developers then I agree
with you.
If not, then would we be OK with make check being a no-op unless you'd
configured with --enable-make-check?
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-10-30 19:30:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
At some point down the road that value judgement might (hopefully will)
reverse, and then we could deal with it by making --enable-tap-tests the
default. But even then there would be a place for
On 30.10.2014 23:19, David G Johnston wrote:
Tomas Vondra wrote
Also, the current phrasing If the NOWAIT option is specified then
the command will fail if it is unable to acquire all of the locks
required immediately. seems a bit ambiguous to me. Maybe it's just
me, but I wasn't sure if that
On 2014-10-30 19:53:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-10-30 19:30:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
At some point down the road that value judgement might (hopefully will)
reverse, and then we could deal with it by making --enable-tap-tests the
On 10/28/14 10:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 10/28/14 9:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
ISTM that the project policy for external components like this has been
don't rely on them unless user says to use them, in which case fail if
they aren't present. So perhaps what we ought to have is a
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-10-30 19:53:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, for example, you don't have and don't want to install IPC::Run.
Well, that's what the hypothetical configure test is for. I see little
reason in this specific case to do anything more complicated
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 04:54:25PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-10-30 01:57:15 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 08:14:07PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 10/28/14 9:09 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I have looked into IPC::Cmd, but the documentation keeps telling
On 2014-10-30 20:13:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-10-30 19:53:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, for example, you don't have and don't want to install IPC::Run.
Well, that's what the hypothetical configure test is for. I see little
reason in
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
If we stick with this version I'd argue it makes more sense to just stick
the sync_node = and priority = statements into the if block and ditch the
continue. /nitpick
Let's go with the cleaner version then, I'd prefer
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-10-30 20:13:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
As I said upthread, that approach seems to me to be contrary to the
project policy about how configure should behave.
I don't think that holds much water. There's a fair amount of things
that configure
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On 10/28/14 10:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 10/28/14 9:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
ISTM that the project policy for external components like this has been
don't rely on them unless user says to use them, in which case fail if
they aren't present. So
On 2014-10-30 21:24:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-10-30 21:03:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Meh. Right now, it's easy to dismiss these tests as unimportant,
figuring that they play little part in whether the completed build
is reliable. But
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Marti Raudsepp ma...@juffo.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Uhm. Obviously we didn't have jsonb when I started this and we do have
them now, so I could perhaps see about updating the patch to do
On 10/30/2014 09:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-10-30 21:24:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-10-30 21:03:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Meh. Right now, it's easy to dismiss these tests as unimportant,
figuring that they play little part in
On 10/28/2014 01:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2014-10-25 18:09:36 -0400, Steve Singer wrote:
I sometimes get the error snapshot too large from my logical replication
walsender process when in response to a CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT.
Yes. That's possible if 'too much' was going on until a
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
There are other issues. I am not going to enable this in the buildfarm
until the check test can work from a single install. It's insane for the
bin tests to take an order of magnitude longer than the main regression
suite.
I think the installs as
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Rushabh Lathia rushabh.lat...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi All,
- Patch got applied cleanly.
- Regression make check run fine.
- Patch covered the documentation changes
Here are few comments:
1) What the need of following change:
diff --git
On 10/29/14 10:48 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On 10/20/14 2:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
My Salesforce colleague Thomas Fanghaenel observed that the TAP tests
for pg_basebackup fail when run in a sufficiently deeply-nested directory
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On 10/7/14 1:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter had a patch to eliminate the overhead of multiple subinstalls;
not sure where that stands, but presumably it would address your issue.
It will need some cleverness to sort out the parallel make issues that
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 03:52:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Robert Haas wrote:
A colleague at EnterpriseDB today ran into a situation on PostgreSQL
9.3.5 where the server went into an infinite loop while attempting a
VACUUM FREEZE; it couldn't
Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes:
Looks like _bt_getstackbuf() is always called with some buffer lock held, so
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() alone would not help:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/16519.1401395...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Oooh, good point. I never followed up on that idea, but we
I wrote:
I took a quick look. I concur with Fabien that the dependency on
MAKELEVEL seems pretty horrid: in particular, will that not break the
ability to initiate make check from somewhere below the top directory?
Another use-case that seems to be broken both by Peter's patch and my
proposed
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 30 October 2014 04:24, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
Locking the toast table of any main tables we access seems easily
done. Though perhaps we should make weak locking of the toast table
presumed. Do
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:49:33PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
There are other issues. I am not going to enable this in the buildfarm
until the check test can work from a single install. It's insane for the
bin tests to take an order of magnitude
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com
wrote:
On 10/30/2014 06:02 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-10-29 10:24:20 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 10/06/2014 02:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
I've not yet really looked,
but on a quick readthrough
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 13 October 2014 10:05, Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I worked bit on this patch to make it closer to committable state.
Here is updated version that works with current HEAD for the October
93 matches
Mail list logo
