. They are
essential for reviewers, not a cosmetic thing to be added later. To gain
wide agreement we need wide understanding. (I recommend a development
approach where you write the comments first, then add code later.)
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com
On 1 July 2015 at 09:00, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
ClogControlLock contention is high at commit time. This appears to be
due to the fact that ClogControlLock is acquired in Exclusive mode prior
, but measuring
progress of VACUUM wouldn't be it, IMHO.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
On 30 June 2015 at 08:22, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
This contention is masked by contention elsewhere, e.g. ProcArrayLock, so
the need for testing here should come once other patches ahead of this are
in.
Let me explain more clearly.
Andres' patch to cache snapshots
first, then we can begin adding other operations as
we work out how (for that operation).
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
On 30 June 2015 at 08:13, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
ClogControlLock contention is high at commit time. This appears to be due
to the fact that ClogControlLock is acquired in Exclusive mode
in clog, which
would require a barrier.
Two concurrent writers might access the same word concurrently, so we
protect against that with a new CommitLock. We could partition that by
pageno also, if needed.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com
On 30 June 2015 at 03:43, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Yes, I know. And we all had a long conversation about how to do it
without
waking up the other procs.
Forming a list, like we use for sync rep
On 30 June 2015 at 07:34, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 30 June 2015 at 05:02, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote
been
sitting on a patch for a month or so and will post now I'm done travelling.
These ideas have been around some time and are even listed on the
PostgreSQL TODO:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-09/msg00206.php
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www
.
+1
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
On 28 June 2015 at 17:17, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 27 June 2015 at 15:10, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I don't like this too much because it will fail badly if the caller
is wrong about the maximum possible page number
is implemented exactly the way I said to implement it
publicly at PgCon.
Was nobody recording the discussion at the unconference??
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
On 29 June 2015 at 18:11, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On June 29, 2015 7:02:10 PM GMT+02:00, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 29 June 2015 at 16:27, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks to Robert Haas for having discussion (offlist) about the idea
On 30 June 2015 at 05:02, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 28 June 2015 at 17:17, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm not sure what you consider dire, but missing a dirty buffer
belonging
destroyed by the user.
So ISTM that we should be able to use this technique.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
?
Or we should just treat it as a limitation of UPSERT and add that document?
+1
There are many problems that cannot be resolved for 9.5.
UPSERT works fine with tables with BRIN indexes.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development
it does not.
You would find the old grammar with:
1[AAA,BBB,CCC]
Let's start with a complex, fully described use case then work out how to
specify what we want.
I'm nervous of it would be good ifs because we do a ton of work only to
find a design flaw.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www
should
specify the on-disk tuple representation as a state machine and work out
how to recheck the new on-disk state matches the state transition that we
performed.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA
On 24 June 2015 at 16:30, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Though TED sounds nice, the way to avoid another round of on-disk bugs is
by using a new kind of testing, not simply by moving the bits around.
It might be argued that we are increasing the diagnostic/forensic
capabilities
.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
like that, but currently we handle things in terms of Schemas. It would
be strange to have differing ways of specifying groups of objects. Maybe
that's not a problem, but we'd probably need to analyse that to make sure
it didn't make things more complex.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www
- which is now
covered by BRIN.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 11 June 2015 at 16:56, Shay Rojansky r...@roji.org wrote:
Npgsql (currently) sends Parse for the second command before sending
Execute for the first one.
Look no further than that.
--
Simon Riggshttp
see a test
case?
Most commonly in such cases the first request failed and error messages
weren't checked before running second message.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
proposal. The balance of
coordinating release activities is mechanical, and -packagers seems
adequate
for it.
Packagers should be about HOW do we make the next release, which is
separate from the above.
Ultimately, How effects When, but When is it needed? is an earlier
thought.
--
Simon Riggs
because the index could get out of sync, so it can omit results
and this is unacceptable. But i think maybe that could be fixed in several
ways and we can have a fast and reliable index (but maybe not so fast on
selects).
This is exactly the use case and mechanism for BRIN indexes.
--
Simon
On 11 June 2015 at 16:56, Shay Rojansky r...@roji.org wrote:
Npgsql (currently) sends Parse for the second command before sending
Execute for the first one.
Look no further than that.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development
the xmax for something useful in a larger insert-mostly
database rather than just leaving it at zero.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
On 5 June 2015 at 17:20, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On 5 June 2015 at 15:00, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Stamping it a beta implies that we think it's something fairly
stable that we'd be pretty happy to release if things go well
, how did it work
before 9.3?
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
so, 2ndQuadrant has zero
income tied to the release of 9.5 or the commit of any feature, so as far
as that company is concerned, the release could wait for 10 years.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote
/stop-the-line/
So lets do our normal things, not do a total stop for an indefinite
period. If someone has specific things that in their opinion need to be
addressed, list them and we can talk about doing them, together. I thought
that was what the Open Items list was for. Let's use it.
--
Simon
.
That way if we need to make Offsets SLRU persistent it won't bloat.
We then leave the Members SLRU as non-persistent, just as it was 9.3
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
On 5 June 2015 at 11:02, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-06-05 10:45:09 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 1 June 2015 at 20:53, Thomas Munro thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com
wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi
wrote:
The beauty
for.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
features that fix real world problems, just as
much as bug fixes do, hence why I don't wish to divert from the normal
process and schedule.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
On 5 June 2015 at 15:00, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Agreed. Cleanup can occur while we release code for public testing.
The code is available for public testing right now.
People test when they get
.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
and it
works we release it. If doesn't, we pull it.
Not releasing our software yet making a list of our fears doesn't work
towards a solution. Our fears will make us shout at each other too, so I
for one would rather skip that part and do some practical actions.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www
On 29 May 2015 at 18:15, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
While I'm just doing this during testing
That part is good. I'm sure you will find something in need of improvement.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development
want it you can write a function to do that for private use.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
like the change to TimeLine 1 is just a kludge anyway. The
rule that TimeLine 1 doesn't need a history file is itself a hack.
What we should be saying is that the last timeline doesn't need a history
file. Then no change is needed here.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http
is that the command tag should vary according to
whether an INSERT or an UPDATE was performed, so we get a visible
difference without any new tags.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
On 27 May 2015 at 15:06, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
What I think should happen is that the command tag should vary according
to
whether an INSERT or an UPDATE was performed, so we get a visible
difference without any new tags.
The problem
specified columns *exactly* matches the tuple descriptor).
...and it matters a lot in those cases because we are sorting all of the
data scanned, not just 25 rows.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA
to be
defined on the table - is handled gracefully.
What has CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY got to do with this? If you don't
specify the conflict-target at all, it wouldn't matter what the indexes
are. If you have two indexes the same then it clearly wouldn't matter which
one was checked first.
--
Simon
will happen in later releases when
they ask.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
On 19 May 2015 at 19:59, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 19 May 2015 at 17:10, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
We
On 20 May 2015 at 05:49, Geoff Winkless pgsqlad...@geoff.dj wrote:
On 19 May 2015 at 21:57, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
It's not clear to me how a single INSERT could cause two or more UPDATEs.
CREATE TABLE mytable (
c1 int NOT NULL,
c2 int NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (c1
in our thinking how we nurture and grow
reviewers, contributors and committers. I am more likely to treat a
low-value patch seriously if it is an early contribution from someone, for
example.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development
you apply the change of unique
constraint.
2) Compatibility with MySQL
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
On 19 May 2015 at 17:10, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
We should allow DO UPDATE to exclude a constraint and apply a
deterministic
order to the constraints. 1. PK if it exists. 2. Replica Identity, when
On 19 May 2015 at 16:49, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
As long as the cookie is randomly generated for each use, then I don't
see a
practical problem with that approach.
If the client sets the cookie via
if multiple constraints end up
triggering for the same INSERT, it would require UPDATEs of multiple rows.
Is that the issue?
I'm sure we'll be asked these questions many times.
Can you comment on whether the docs are sufficiently detailed to explain
this answer?
--
Simon Riggshttp
. It's quicker than normal, but if we've lost a month or
two we should just skip the usual open items chase, which can be done in
parallel with users finding and reporting real bugs.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7
with waiting.
That's a very low risk fix. It's more like a should-have-been-a-basic-check.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
number of MVs in play that search would not be a
problem in practice.
I'm also aware that LIMIT is still very badly optimized, so I'm hoping it
helps there also.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA
On 1 May 2015 at 18:05, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
* TABLESAMPLE clause
Doesn't seem very far from being done. Some questions about including
(or not) DDL and contrib modules seem to remain.
Will commit this soon
OK, completely happy with this now and will commit today
change for 9.3 so I don't see what the
objection is.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
thought.
There is one clear use case for this and it is of benefit to many
distributed architectures.
I don't see what calamity will occur if we commit this. If you don't want a
sequence AM, don't ever use this.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com
and have them enabled by default with no parameter to disable them. In the
early years of PostgreSQL everything had an off switch, e.g. stats,
bgwriter and even autovacuum defaulted to off for many years.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL
not set to -1 at overflow anymore?
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
On 8 May 2015 at 13:02, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 7 May 2015 at 21:40, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi all,
Coverity is complaining about the following assertion
said he'll have a look.
Maybe me, but running out of time
* TABLESAMPLE clause
Doesn't seem very far from being done. Some questions about including
(or not) DDL and contrib modules seem to remain.
Will commit this soon
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http
-HOT update, causing the index to bloat. It seems better to wait for a
short period to see if we can get the cleanup lock. The short period is
currently 0, so lets start there and vary the duration of wait upwards
proportionally as the index gets more bloated.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www
the standard says we will eventually support, so we
should be acting with an eye to that future.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
be set manually to enforce bloat minimization.
We can also design a utility to actively use TARGBLOCK_NEW and FSM_SHRINK
to reduce table size without blocking writes.
But this is all stuff for 9.6...
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL
1000.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
of replication identifier -
replication origin to the patch. Or even transaction origin.
Sounds good to me.
+1
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
approach to be coded for next
release.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
and then and does it thing. Why should the one massive SELECT have
horrible performance just because it was run right before autovacuum would
have kicked in instead of right after if finished?
+1
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL
bits or dirtied the
block in other ways.
Since we have many votes in favour of change in this area I'll post a new
version and look for an early review/commit for next release.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7
On 17 April 2015 at 09:54, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
Hrmpf. Says the person that used a lot of padding, without much
discussion, for the WAL level infrastructure making pg_rewind more
maintainable.
Sounds bad. What padding are we talking about?
--
Simon Riggs
resilience, it is a sensible use of bytes.
+1 to Andres' very reasonable suggestion. Lets commit this and go home.
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
http://www.2ndquadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
On 16 April 2015 at 15:21, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-04-16 10:20:20 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I think you're failing to consider that in the patch there is a
distinction between read-only page accesses and page updates. During a
page update, HOT cleanup is always
On 15 April 2015 at 08:04, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 14 April 2015 at 21:53, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Peter commented previously that README.HOT should get an update. The
relevant
On 15 April 2015 at 09:10, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-04-15 08:42:33 -0400, Simon Riggs wrote:
Because it makes it subsequent accesses to the page cheaper.
Cheaper for whom?
Everyone.
I think what you mean is Everyone else. It is demonstrably quicker
and more
On 15 April 2015 at 12:39, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I won't take responsibility for paying my neighbor's tax bill, but I
might take responsibility for picking up his mail while he's on
holiday
On 15 April 2015 at 16:01, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On 15 April 2015 at 12:39, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/15/2015 05:44 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Robert's proposal is when reading a page, if dirty HOT-clean it; if not
dirty, also
be a useful heuristic to still prune pages if
those pages are already dirty.
Useful for who? This is about responsibility. Why should someone
performing a large SELECT take the responsibility for cleaning pages?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7
good builds later if desired.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, RemoteDBA, Training Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org
to add/remove a parameter to control this. Currently
there isn't one.
I'd like to commit this.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, RemoteDBA, Training Services
hot_disable.v9.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
be technically possible
with what we have here, but I think a lot more thought required yet.
These have all come out of detailed discussions with two different
groups of data mining researchers.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, RemoteDBA
On 9 April 2015 at 04:52, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
TABLESAMPLE BERNOULLI could work in this case, or any other non-block
based sampling mechanism. Whether it does work yet is another matter.
This query should be part of the test suite and should generate a
useful message
work in this case, or any other non-block
based sampling mechanism. Whether it does work yet is another matter.
This query should be part of the test suite and should generate a
useful message or work correctly.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development
were generated, but not which ones they were. IMHO that
makes the resulting audit trail unusable for auditing purposes. I
would like to see that functionality put back before it gets
committed, if that occurs.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development
preference also. My concern was raised when it was
*removed* without confirming others agreed.
Typical questions:
Who has written to table X?
Who has read data from table Y yesterday between time1 and time2?
Has anyone accessed a table directly, rather than through a security view?
--
Simon Riggs
be one of list.
Are we ready for a final detailed review and commit?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, RemoteDBA, Training Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
On 5 April 2015 at 19:19, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Cool! Thanks for showing up.
Visibility Activity. How is REINDEX CONCURRENTLY doing?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, RemoteDBA, Training Services
the same
banner as AT_AddConstraint. Thoughts?
A new version of the patch is attached which treats them as the same for
locking. I think it is correct and improves readability to do so.
Committed. We move forwards, slowly but surely. Thanks for the patch.
--
Simon Riggs
On 30 March 2015 at 01:08, David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 December 2014 at 02:48, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
David, if you can update your patch with some docs to explain the
behaviour, it looks complete enough to think about committing it in
early January
a large chunk of the use cases.
If it wasn't clear, I had already said that my idea was for next
release, before Robert said that.
I used to have this quote (or something close to it) on my whiteboard... I
think it's appropriate here ;)
The perfect is the enemy of the good. -Simon Riggs
On 16 March 2015 at 12:48, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 13 March 2015 at 15:41, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
The feedback was generally fairly positive except for the fact that
snapshot age (for purposes of being too old
actually get it.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, RemoteDBA, Training Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql
. If
I had kept the AlternativePlan node around then the EXPLAIN output would
have 2 plans, both sitting under the AlternativePlan node.
I guess that is at least compatible with how we currently handle other
join elimination, so that is acceptable to me.
--
Simon Riggs http://www
. We know that the
*only* possible other setting is 'shutdown', so it seems more user
friendly to do the thing we *know* they want (1), rather than pretend
that we don't.
(1) is completely predictable and not at all surprising. Add a LOG
message if you wish, but don't throw an error.
--
Simon
On 13 March 2015 at 13:17, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 15 February 2015 at 00:19, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
What they wanted was what happened in the other database product --
if a snapshot
as there is agreement to
improve this in the future
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, RemoteDBA, Training Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http
the
size of the bloat we care about, not the time. So we should be
thinking in terms of limits that we actually care about.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, RemoteDBA, Training Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
901 - 1000 of 8408 matches
Mail list logo
