Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 03:55:35PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 9/24/12 3:43 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On 24 September 2012 17:36, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> > For me, the Postgres user interface should include > * REINDEX CONCURRENTLY > >> > >> I don't see why we don't have REINDEX CONC

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 02:39:36 PM Michael Paquier wrote: > Do you think it is acceptable to consider that the user has to do the > cleanup of the old or new index himself if there is a failure? The problem I see is that if you want the thing to be efficient you might end up doing step

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 01:48:34 PM Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Andres Freund >wrote: > > > On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 04:37:05 AM Michael Paquier wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:13 AM, And

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 01:48:34 PM Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 04:37:05 AM Michael Paquier wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Andres Freund > > > > >wrote: > > > Could you clarify what do you m

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: > > For me, the Postgres user interface should include > > * REINDEX CONCURRENTLY > > * CLUSTER CONCURRENTLY > > * ALTER TABLE CONCURRENTLY > > and also that autovacuum would be expanded to include REINDEX and > > CLUS

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

Simon Riggs writes: > For me, the Postgres user interface should include > * REINDEX CONCURRENTLY > * CLUSTER CONCURRENTLY > * ALTER TABLE CONCURRENTLY > and also that autovacuum would be expanded to include REINDEX and > CLUSTER, renaming it to automaint. FWIW, +1 to all those user requirements,

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 04:37:05 AM Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Andres Freund >wrote: > > Could you clarify what do you mean here by cleanup? > > I am afraid I do not get your point here. > > Sorry, was

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 04:37:05 AM Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:55:35 AM Josh Berkus wrote: > > > On 9/24/12 3:43 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > On 24 September 2012 17:36, Josh Berkus wrote: > > >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:55:35 AM Josh Berkus wrote: > > On 9/24/12 3:43 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > On 24 September 2012 17:36, Josh Berkus wrote: > > For me, the Postgres user interface should include > > * REINDEX CONC

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:55:35 AM Josh Berkus wrote: > On 9/24/12 3:43 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On 24 September 2012 17:36, Josh Berkus wrote: > For me, the Postgres user interface should include > * REINDEX CONCURRENTLY > >> > >> I don't see why we don't have REINDEX CONCURR

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On 9/24/12 3:43 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 24 September 2012 17:36, Josh Berkus wrote: >> For me, the Postgres user interface should include * REINDEX CONCURRENTLY >> >> I don't see why we don't have REINDEX CONCURRENTLY now. > > Same reason for everything on (anyone's) TODO list. Yes

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On 24 September 2012 17:36, Josh Berkus wrote: > >>> For me, the Postgres user interface should include >>> * REINDEX CONCURRENTLY > > I don't see why we don't have REINDEX CONCURRENTLY now. Same reason for everything on (anyone's) TODO list. Lack of vision is not holding us back, we just need t

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

>> For me, the Postgres user interface should include >> * REINDEX CONCURRENTLY I don't see why we don't have REINDEX CONCURRENTLY now. When I was writing out the instructions for today's update, I was thinking "we already have all the commands for this". -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Excerpts from Daniele Varrazzo's message of dom sep 23 22:02:51 -0300 2012: >> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >> >> > As proposed by Masahiko, a single organization grouping all the tools (one >> > repository p

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

2012/09/25 0:15, Simon Riggs wrote: On 21 September 2012 08:42, Michael Paquier wrote: On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Hitoshi Harada wrote: I'm not familiar with pg_reorg, but I wonder why we need a separate program for this task. I know pg_reorg is ok as an external program per se, but

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On 21 September 2012 08:42, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Hitoshi Harada > wrote: >> >> I'm not familiar with pg_reorg, but I wonder why we need a separate >> program for this task. I know pg_reorg is ok as an external program >> per se, but if we could optimize C

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 3:25 AM, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: > > To solve this problem, I would like to have some umbrella project. > It would be called "pg dba utils", or something like this. > This umbrella project may contain several third-party tools (pg_reorg, > pg_rman, pg_filedump, xlogdump, et

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

Excerpts from Daniele Varrazzo's message of dom sep 23 22:02:51 -0300 2012: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > > As proposed by Masahiko, a single organization grouping all the tools (one > > repository per tool) would be enough. Please note that github can also host

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: > 2012/09/23 12:37, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > > > > >>> I think it's time to consider some *umbrella project* for maintaining > >>> several small projects outside the core. > >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

2012/09/23 12:37, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > >>> I think it's time to consider some *umbrella project* for maintaining >>> several small projects outside the core. >> >> Well, that was pgfoundry, and it didn't work out. > > I'm not sure

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 >> I think it's time to consider some *umbrella project* for maintaining >> several small projects outside the core. > > Well, that was pgfoundry, and it didn't work out. I'm not sure that is quite analogous to what was being proposed. I read

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On Sat, 2012-09-22 at 16:25 +0900, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: >> I think it's time to consider some *umbrella project* for maintaining >> several small projects outside the core. > > Well, that was pgfoundry, and it didn't work out. There se

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Sat, 2012-09-22 at 16:25 +0900, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: > I think it's time to consider some *umbrella project* for maintaining > several small projects outside the core. Well, that was pgfoundry, and it didn't work out. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 9:45 AM, M.Sakamoto wrote: > Hi, > I'm sakamoto, maintainer of reorg. > >>> What could be also great is to move the project directly into github to >>> facilitate its maintenance and development. >>No argument from me there, especially as I have my own fork in github, >>but

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

2012/9/22 Satoshi Nagayasu : > (2012/09/22 11:01), sakamoto wrote: >> (2012/09/22 10:02), Christopher Browne wrote: >>> >>> If the present project is having a tough time doing enhancements, I >>> should think it mighty questionable to try to draw it into core, that >>> presses it towards a group of

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

(2012/09/22 11:01), sakamoto wrote: > (2012/09/22 10:02), Christopher Browne wrote: >> >> If the present project is having a tough time doing enhancements, I >> should think it mighty questionable to try to draw it into core, that >> presses it towards a group of already very busy developers. >>

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

Hi, I'm sakamoto, maintainer of reorg. >> What could be also great is to move the project directly into github to >> facilitate its maintenance and development. >No argument from me there, especially as I have my own fork in github, >but that's up to the current maintainers. Yup, I am thinking dev

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

(2012/09/22 10:02), Christopher Browne wrote: If the present project is having a tough time doing enhancements, I should think it mighty questionable to try to draw it into core, that presses it towards a group of already very busy developers. On the other hand, if the present development ef

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

If the present project is having a tough time doing enhancements, I should think it mighty questionable to try to draw it into core, that presses it towards a group of already very busy developers. On the other hand, if the present development efforts can be made more public, by having them take p

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 9:08 AM, sakamoto wrote: > (2012/09/21 22:32), Michael Paquier wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Daniele Varrazzo < >> daniele.varra...@gmail.com >> > >> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Josh Kupershmidt >>

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

(2012/09/21 22:32), Michael Paquier wrote: On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Daniele Varrazzo mailto:daniele.varra...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Josh Kupershmidt mailto:schmi...@gmail.com>> wrote: I haven't submitted it to PGXN as I prefer the original autho

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Hitoshi Harada wrote: > I'm not familiar with pg_reorg, but I wonder why we need a separate > program for this task. I know pg_reorg is ok as an external program > per se, but if we could optimize CLUSTER (or VACUUM which I'm a little > pessimistic about) in the s

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Daniele Varrazzo < daniele.varra...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Josh Kupershmidt > wrote: > > > If the argument for moving pg_reorg into core is "faster and easier" > > development, well I don't really buy that. > > I don't see any problem

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: > If the argument for moving pg_reorg into core is "faster and easier" > development, well I don't really buy that. I don't see any problem in having pg_reorg in PGXN instead. I've tried adding a META.json to the project and it seems work

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Josh Kupershmidt > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: > What could be also great is to move the project directly into github to > facilitate its maintenance and deve

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Hi all, > > During the last PGCon, I heard that some community members would be > interested in having pg_reorg directly in core. > Just to recall, pg_reorg is a functionality developped by NTT that allows to > redistribute a table without

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > During the last PGCon, I heard that some community members would be > > interested in having pg_reorg directly in core. > > I'm actually not crazy about this i

Re: [HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Hi all, > > During the last PGCon, I heard that some community members would be > interested in having pg_reorg directly in core. I'm actually not crazy about this idea, at least not given the current state of pg_reorg. Right now, there ar

[HACKERS] pg_reorg in core?

Hi all, During the last PGCon, I heard that some community members would be interested in having pg_reorg directly in core. Just to recall, pg_reorg is a functionality developped by NTT that allows to redistribute a table without taking locks on it. The technique it uses to reorganize the table is