On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:41:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> daveg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Are we talking about the same patch?
>
> Maybe not --- I thought you were talking about a backend-side behavioral
> change.
>
> > Because I don't know what you are
> > refering to with "timer managem
daveg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are we talking about the same patch?
Maybe not --- I thought you were talking about a backend-side behavioral
change.
> Because I don't know what you are
> refering to with "timer management code" and "scheduling the interrupt" in
> the context of pg_dump.
I'm
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 05:34:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> daveg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > lock-timeout sets statement_timeout to a small value while locks are being
> > taken on all the tables. Then it resets it to default. So it could reset it
> > to whatever the new default is.
>
> "rese
daveg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> lock-timeout sets statement_timeout to a small value while locks are being
> taken on all the tables. Then it resets it to default. So it could reset it
> to whatever the new default is.
"reset to default" is *surely* not the right behavior; resetting to the
set
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 07:30:53PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> daveg wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 06:51:28PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Joshua D. Drake escribi?:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I would like to get do this without adding a new --use-statement-timeout
> >> flag. Is anyone going to want to honor statement_timeout during
> >> pg_dump/pg_restore? I
Alex Hunsaker wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would like to get do this without adding a new --use-statement-timeout
flag. Is anyone going to want to honor statement_timeout during
pg_dump/pg_restore? I thought we were just going to disable it
Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would like to get do this without adding a new --use-statement-timeout
> > flag. Is anyone going to want to honor statement_timeout during
> > pg_dump/pg_restore? I thought we were just going to
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to get do this without adding a new --use-statement-timeout
> flag. Is anyone going to want to honor statement_timeout during
> pg_dump/pg_restore? I thought we were just going to disable it.
I believe so.
daveg wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 06:51:28PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Joshua D. Drake escribi?:
> > > >
> > > > > That is an interesting idea. Something like:
> > > > >
>
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 06:51:28PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Joshua D. Drake escribi?:
> > >
> > > > That is an interesting idea. Something like:
> > > >
> > > > pg_restore -E "SET ST
Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake escribi?:
> >
> > > That is an interesting idea. Something like:
> > >
> > > pg_restore -E "SET STATEMENT_TIMEOUT=0; SET MAINTENANCE_WORK_MEM=1G" ?
> >
> > We already have it -
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Committed with slight editorializing. Statement timeout was only
introduced in 7.3, whereas pg_dump can dump from much older versions
of Postgres.
You forget a ; in this committ [1].
[1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committer
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Committed with slight editorializing. Statement timeout was only
introduced in 7.3, whereas pg_dump can dump from much older versions of
Postgres.
You forget a ; in this committ [1].
[1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2008-05/msg00028.php
--
Euler
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:46:23 -0700
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And the -c version :) (thanks bruce)
Committed with slight editorializing. Statement timeout was only
introduced in 7.3, whereas pg_du
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 03:18:54PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I think the bottom line is just that having statement_timeout a global
> setting
> is stupid for a variety of reasons (dump, restore, vacuum, locks, incidental
> delays) that we should discourage it (or prevent it, as proposed e
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
A use case would be dumping a large table and wanting to
load it into the database, but wanting to stop the job if it
is still running an hour from now, when a maintenance window
is scheduled to start.
statement_timeout is pretty useless for that purpose, because it l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> Sorry if I missed it in the original thread, but what is the
> use case you have in mind?
A use case would be dumping a large table and wanting to
load it into the database, but wanting to stop the job if it
is still running an hour from now,
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Sorry if I missed it in the original thread, but what is the use case
>> you have in mind?
> I think the bottom line is just that having statement_timeout a global
> setting
> is stupid for a variety of reasons (dump, re
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Sorry if I missed it in the original thread, but what is the use case
> you have in mind?
I think the bottom line is just that having statement_timeout a global setting
is stupid for a variety of reasons (dump, restore, vacuum, locks, incidental
delays) that we should
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
I agree that we should do that, but the thread on -hackers ("Autovacuum
vs statement_timeout") wasn't totally conclusive. Greg Sabine Mullane
and Peter Eisentraut argued that we shouldn't, but neither provided a
plausible use case where a statement_timeout on restoring
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake escribió:
>
> > That is an interesting idea. Something like:
> >
> > pg_restore -E "SET STATEMENT_TIMEOUT=0; SET MAINTENANCE_WORK_MEM=1G" ?
>
> We already have it -- it's called PGOPTIONS.
>
Ok but is n
Joshua D. Drake escribió:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:50:28 -0400
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Actually, it's probably more important to be selectable at restore
> > time than at dump time, so if you're doing just one ...
I think the patch posted by Joshua at the start of this thr
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:50:28 -0400
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sorry if i missed the obvious reason not to do this... but if its a
> > command line option the user can choose. Why not something like
> > this (i did it for pg_dump only...)
> >
Alex Hunsaker wrote:
Sorry if i missed the obvious reason not to do this... but if its a
command line option the user can choose. Why not something like this
(i did it for pg_dump only...)
Actually, it's probably more important to be selectable at restore time
than at dump time, so if
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:22:31 -0700
>
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:17:30 -
> > "Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think it's fair to s
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:22:31 -0700
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:17:30 -
> "Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't think it's fair to simply discard the use cases provided as
> > "implausible" and demand one more to your liking.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:17:30 -
"Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think it's fair to simply discard the use cases provided as
> "implausible" and demand one more to your liking. I strongly dislike
> having a giant dump file written that has non-vital configuration
> va
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> I agree that we should do that, but the thread on -hackers ("Autovacuum
> vs statement_timeout") wasn't totally conclusive. Greg Sabine Mullane
> and Peter Eisentraut argued that we shouldn't, but neither provided a
> plausible use case where
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:20:17 +0300
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My patch addresses all three, unless I am misunderstanding your
> > meaning. The patch does the following:
> >
> > After connection with pg_dump it executes set statement_timeout = 0;
> > This fixed the pg_dump t
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:04:17 +0300
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To quote Tom:
I think we need to be careful to distinguish three situations:
* statement_timeout during pg_dump
* statement_timeout during pg_restore
* statement_timeout during psql reading
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:04:17 +0300
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To quote Tom:
> > I think we need to be careful to distinguish three situations:
> >
> > * statement_timeout during pg_dump
> > * statement_timeout during pg_restore
> > * statement_timeout during psql reading a pg
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
What is the feedback on this patch? Is there anything I need to do to
get it into the next commit fest?
Yes, go add it to the wiki page ;-):
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest:May
I agree that we should do that, but the thread on -hackers ("Autovacuum
vs stateme
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:36:50 -0400
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > What is the feedback on this patch? Is there anything I need to do
> > to get it into the next commit fest?
>
> Please add it to the commitfest wiki page.
>
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/w
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> What is the feedback on this patch? Is there anything I need to do to
> get it into the next commit fest?
Please add it to the commitfest wiki page.
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest:May
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:07:27 -0700
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:46:23 -0700
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And the -c version :) (thanks bruce)
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
What is the fe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:46:23 -0700
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And the -c version :) (thanks bruce)
Joshua D. Drake
- --
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
O.k. this appeared easy enough for even me to do it. So I did. It seems
to work but I wasn't 100% positive on "where" I put the code changes.
Please take a look.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.
38 matches
Mail list logo
