On 04/05/2015 05:56 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
Committed. We move forwards, slowly but surely. Thanks for the patch.
Thanks to you and the reviewers for helping me out with this patch!
--
Andreas Karlsson
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to
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
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 7 February 2015 at 20:05, Andreas Karlsson andr...@proxel.se wrote:
On 01/30/2015 07:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Looking at the latest patch, it seems that in
AlterTableGetLockLevel@tablecmds.c we ought to put
On 7 February 2015 at 20:05, Andreas Karlsson andr...@proxel.se wrote:
On 01/30/2015 07:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Looking at the latest patch, it seems that in
AlterTableGetLockLevel@tablecmds.c we ought to put AT_ReAddConstraint,
AT_AddConstraintRecurse and AT_ProcessedConstraint under
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Andreas Karlsson andr...@proxel.se wrote:
On 01/30/2015 07:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Looking at the latest patch, it seems that in
AlterTableGetLockLevel@tablecmds.c we ought to put AT_ReAddConstraint,
AT_AddConstraintRecurse and AT_ProcessedConstraint
On 02/06/2015 08:16 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
On 01/30/2015 07:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Looking at the latest patch, it seems that in
AlterTableGetLockLevel@tablecmds.c we ought to put AT_ReAddConstraint,
AT_AddConstraintRecurse
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
On 01/30/2015 07:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Looking at the latest patch, it seems that in
AlterTableGetLockLevel@tablecmds.c we ought to put AT_ReAddConstraint,
AT_AddConstraintRecurse and AT_ProcessedConstraint under the same
On 01/30/2015 07:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Ok, so the deal is to finally reduce the locks to
ShareRowExclusiveLock for the following commands :
- CREATE TRIGGER
- ALTER TABLE ENABLE/DISABLE
- ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT
Correct. I personally still find this useful enough to justify a patch.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Andreas Karlsson andr...@proxel.se wrote:
On 01/22/2015 10:31 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
I agree with this view, and am not sure myself that it is worth lowering
the lock level of ALTER TRIGGER RENAME. I have attached a patch without
the changes to ALTER
On 01/20/2015 10:08 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
Fair enough. It did reinforce pg_get_constraintdef() as a subroutine of
pg_dump rather than an independent, rigorous interface. It perhaps made the
function worse for non-pg_dump callers. In that vein, each one of these hacks
has a cost. One could
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 04:59:56PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-01-16 15:16:20 +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
For this reason I opted to only lower the lock levels of ADD and ALTER
TRIGGER, and not DROP TRIGGER. Neither of those require MVCC of then
WHEN clause.
I'm unconvinced
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Just consider:
S1: CREATE TABLE flubber(id serial primary key, data text);
S1: CREATE FUNCTION blarg() RETURNS TRIGGER LANGUAGE plpgsql AS $$BEGIN
RETURN NEW; END;$$;
S1: CREATE TRIGGER flubber_blarg BEFORE INSERT
Hi,
/*
- * Grab an exclusive lock on the pk table, so that someone doesn't
delete
- * rows out from under us. (Although a lesser lock would do for that
- * purpose, we'll need exclusive lock anyway to add triggers to the pk
- * table; trying to start with a lesser
On 01/16/2015 03:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
/*
-* Grab an exclusive lock on the pk table, so that someone doesn't
delete
-* rows out from under us. (Although a lesser lock would do for that
-* purpose, we'll need exclusive lock anyway to add triggers to
On 2015-01-16 15:16:20 +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
Indeed. As Noah and I discussed previously in this thread we would need to
do quite a bit of refactoring of ruleutils.c to make it fully MVCC.
Right.
For this reason I opted to only lower the lock levels of ADD and ALTER
TRIGGER, and not
On 01/14/2015 08:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
All those things gathered give the patch attached. Andreas, if you are
fine with it I think that we could pass it to a committer.
Excellent changes. Thanks for the patch and the reviews.
--
Andreas Karlsson
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing
I wrote:
I think that we could pass it to a committer.
Marked as such.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Andreas Karlsson andr...@proxel.se wrote:
get_rule_expr() relies heavily on the catcache which to me does not look
like it could easily be (and probably not even should be) made to use the
current snapshot. Refactoring ruleutils.c to rely less no the catcache
I'm not sure about the rest of this but...
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Andreas Karlsson andr...@proxel.se wrote:
Is this patch
worthwhile even without reducing the lock levels of the drop commands?
Yes! It certainly makes more sense to reduce the lock levels where we
can do that
Hi,
I have attached a patch with the current status of my work on reducing
the lock level of trigger and foreign key related DDL.
This commit reduces the lock level of the following commands from ACCESS
EXCLUSIVE to SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE, plus that it does the same for the
referred table of
20 matches
Mail list logo
