Re: [HACKERS] LWLock statistics collector (was: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2)

2006-07-31 Thread Katsuhiko Okano
Hi,All. Since the cause was found and the provisional patch was made and solved about the CSStorm problem in previous mails, it reports. > Subject: [HACKERS] poor performance with Context Switch Storm at TPC-W. > Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:09:24 +0900 > From: Katsuhiko Okano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >

Re: [HACKERS] LWLock statistics collector (was: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2)

2006-07-31 Thread Katsuhiko Okano
Katsuhiko Okano wrote: > Since the cause was found and the provisional patch was made > and solved about the CSStorm problem in previous mails, it reports. (snip) > (A) The algorithm which replaces a buffer is bad. > A time stamp does not become new until swapout completes > the swapout page. > I

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: First small patches needed for regression tests

2006-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Meskes) writes: > Log Message: > --- > First small patches needed for regression tests According to the buildfarm, this commit broke the build under --enable-thread-safety. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)-

[HACKERS] Connection limit and Superuser

2006-07-31 Thread Rod Taylor
It appears that the superuser does not have connection limit enforcement. I think this should be changed. Slony in particular does not need more than N connections but does require being a super user. -- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain an

Re: [HACKERS] Connection limit and Superuser

2006-07-31 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 08:47:38AM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote: > It appears that the superuser does not have connection limit > enforcement. I think this should be changed. So if some admin process goes awry and uses up all the connection slots, how does the admin get in to see what's happening? If t

[HACKERS] User-defined typle similar to char(length) varchar(length)

2006-07-31 Thread Teodor Sigaev
Is it possible to create user-defined type with optional length in create table similar to char()/varchar()/bit()? Without modification gram.y of course... Thank you. -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [HACKERS] Connection limit and Superuser

2006-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It appears that the superuser does not have connection limit > enforcement. I think this should be changed. If you're superuser, you are not subject to access restrictions, by definition. I cannot imagine any scenario under which the above would be a good

Re: [HACKERS] DTrace enabled build fails

2006-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Robert Lor wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > >That rings a bell. Can we get a more precise designation on what > >version of DTrace we support? And where can one get that required > >update? > > > > > > > Peter, > > The problem with static function was fixed recently and is now available

Re: [HACKERS] Connection limit and Superuser

2006-07-31 Thread Csaba Nagy
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 15:00, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 08:47:38AM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote: > > It appears that the superuser does not have connection limit > > enforcement. I think this should be changed. > > So if some admin process goes awry and uses up all the conn

Re: [HACKERS] Connection limit and Superuser

2006-07-31 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 08:47:38AM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote: It appears that the superuser does not have connection limit enforcement. I think this should be changed. So if some admin process goes awry and uses up all the connection slots, how does the admi

Re: [HACKERS] User-defined typle similar to char(length) varchar(length)

2006-07-31 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 05:04:00PM +0400, Teodor Sigaev wrote: > Is it possible to create user-defined type with optional length in create > table similar to char()/varchar()/bit()? Without modification gram.y of > course... No. Search the archives for discussions about "user defined typmod". Th

Re: [HACKERS] Connection limit and Superuser

2006-07-31 Thread Rod Taylor
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 09:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > It appears that the superuser does not have connection limit > > enforcement. I think this should be changed. > > If you're superuser, you are not subject to access restrictions, > by definition. I can

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: First small patches needed for regression tests

2006-07-31 Thread Michael Meskes
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 08:35:00AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > According to the buildfarm, this commit broke the build under > --enable-thread-safety. Should be fixed now. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo

Re: [HACKERS] Connection limit and Superuser

2006-07-31 Thread Rod Taylor
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 15:07 +0200, Csaba Nagy wrote: > On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 15:00, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 08:47:38AM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote: > > > It appears that the superuser does not have connection limit > > > enforcement. I think this should be changed. > >

Re: [HACKERS] Connection limit and Superuser

2006-07-31 Thread Csaba Nagy
Nevermind, I realized now that you're talking about a different setting. > I thought there is a limit for super-users too... citation from: > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/runtime-config-connection.html#RUNTIME-CONFIG-CONNECTION-SETTINGS Cheers, Csaba. ---(e

Re: [HACKERS] Connection limit and Superuser

2006-07-31 Thread Rod Taylor
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 15:00 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 08:47:38AM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote: > > It appears that the superuser does not have connection limit > > enforcement. I think this should be changed. > > So if some admin process goes awry and uses up all th

Re: [HACKERS] User-defined typle similar to char(length) varchar(length)

2006-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Martijn van Oosterhout writes: > No. Search the archives for discussions about "user defined typmod". > The basic problem came down too that the set of allowed words for > functions and types would be forced to be the same (due to restrictions > in lookahead), and people wern't happy with that bec

Re: [HACKERS] Connection limit and Superuser

2006-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: >> Maybe someone should look into enabling slony to not run as a >> superuser? > That was my initial reaction to this suggestion. But then I realised > that it might well make sense to have a separate connection-limited >

Re: [HACKERS] Relation locking and relcache load (was Re: Going for "all green" buildfarm results)

2006-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: >> ... This means the only thing stopping us from >> taking lock before we invoke relcache is lack of knowledge about the >> rel's relisshared status. While digging through all the places that open relcache entries, I've realized that there's another problem, specifically the way that we

Re: [HACKERS] Relation locking and relcache load (was Re: Going for "all green" buildfarm results)

2006-07-31 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I think the best solution for this might be to put the responsibility > for creating system catalogs' toast tables into the bootstrap phase > instead of making initdb do it afterwards. This would be a Good Thing > anyway since currently we are incapable of d

Re: [HACKERS] Connection limit and Superuser

2006-07-31 Thread Rod Taylor
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 09:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > >> Maybe someone should look into enabling slony to not run as a > >> superuser? > > > That was my initial reaction to this suggestion. But then I realised > > that

[HACKERS] tg_trigtuple not NULL in AFTER STATEMENT triggers?

2006-07-31 Thread Michael Fuhr
I've noticed that tg_trigtuple and tg_newtuple aren't cleared to NULL in AFTER STATEMENT triggers. Is that an oversight, or does the code intentionally not bother because trigger functions shouldn't be referencing those members in statement-level triggers anyway, or is there some other reason? --

Re: [HACKERS] Relation locking and relcache load (was Re: Going for "all green" buildfarm results)

2006-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> I think the best solution for this might be to put the responsibility >> for creating system catalogs' toast tables into the bootstrap phase >> instead of making initdb do it afterwards. > Would this make it much

Re: [HACKERS] Connection limit and Superuser

2006-07-31 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: Maybe someone should look into enabling slony to not run as a superuser? That was my initial reaction to this suggestion. But then I realised that it might well make sense to have a se

Re: [HACKERS] tg_trigtuple not NULL in AFTER STATEMENT triggers?

2006-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've noticed that tg_trigtuple and tg_newtuple aren't cleared to > NULL in AFTER STATEMENT triggers. Is that an oversight, Probably. Send a patch? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)-

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] extension for sql update

2006-07-31 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2006 22:58 schrieb Tom Lane: > The reason people want this syntax is that they expect to be > able to write, say, > > UPDATE mytab SET (foo, bar, baz) = > (SELECT alpha, beta, gamma FROM othertab WHERE key = mytab.key); I don't find any derivation in the stand

Re: [HACKERS] Connection limit and Superuser

2006-07-31 Thread Joshua D. Drake
As a protection against malice, yes. I think Rod was more interested in some protection against stupidity. Maybe the real answer is that Slony should connect as a non-superuser and call security definer functions for the privileged things it needs to do. Wouldn't that break Slony's abili

Re: [HACKERS] Connection limit and Superuser

2006-07-31 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Joshua D. Drake wrote: As a protection against malice, yes. I think Rod was more interested in some protection against stupidity. Maybe the real answer is that Slony should connect as a non-superuser and call security definer functions for the privileged things it needs to do. Wouldn'

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] extension for sql update

2006-07-31 Thread Rod Taylor
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 17:26 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2006 22:58 schrieb Tom Lane: > > The reason people want this syntax is that they expect to be > > able to write, say, > > > > UPDATE mytab SET (foo, bar, baz) = > > (SELECT alpha, beta, gamma FROM otherta

Re: [HACKERS] tg_trigtuple not NULL in AFTER STATEMENT triggers?

2006-07-31 Thread Michael Fuhr
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 11:12:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I've noticed that tg_trigtuple and tg_newtuple aren't cleared to > > NULL in AFTER STATEMENT triggers. Is that an oversight, > > Probably. Send a patch? Sure. Is the switch in AfterTriggerE

Re: [HACKERS] Going for "all green" buildfarm results

2006-07-31 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 11:44:44AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > >> FYI: lionfish just managed to hit that problem again: > >> http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=lionfish&dt=2006-07-29%2023:30:06 > > > The test

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] extension for sql update

2006-07-31 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 08:38:30PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote: > On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 20:20 -0400, Robert Treat wrote: > > On Thursday 27 July 2006 09:28, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > > >> UPDATE mytab SET

Re: [HACKERS] tg_trigtuple not NULL in AFTER STATEMENT triggers?

2006-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 11:12:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> I've noticed that tg_trigtuple and tg_newtuple aren't cleared to >>> NULL in AFTER STATEMENT triggers. Is that an oversight, >> >> Probably. Send a

Re: [HACKERS] Relation locking and relcache load (was Re: Going for "all green" buildfarm results)

2006-07-31 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > * Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >> I think the best solution for this might be to put the responsibility > >> for creating system catalogs' toast tables into the bootstrap phase > >> instead of making init

Re: [HACKERS] Going for "all green" buildfarm results

2006-07-31 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 11:44:44AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: FYI: lionfish just managed to hit that problem again: http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=lionfish&dt=2006-07-29%2023

Re: [HACKERS] Connection limit and Superuser

2006-07-31 Thread Chris Browne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Dunstan) writes: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> >>> >>> As a protection against malice, yes. I think Rod was more >>> interested in some protection against stupidity. >>> >>> Maybe the real answer is that Slony should connect as a >>> non-superuser and call security definer

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Allow commenting of variables in postgresql.conf to -

2006-07-31 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Zdenek Kotala wrote: > I performed some cleanup in my code as well. I reduced some > conditions, which cannot occur and fixed context validation in the > set_config_options function. I hope that It is final version of our > patch. The way I see it, combining a feature change with a code refactorin

Re: [HACKERS] Connection limit and Superuser

2006-07-31 Thread Hannu Krosing
Ühel kenal päeval, E, 2006-07-31 kell 09:52, kirjutas Tom Lane: > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > >> Maybe someone should look into enabling slony to not run as a > >> superuser? > > > That was my initial reaction to this suggestion. But then I realis

Re: [HACKERS] Going for "all green" buildfarm results

2006-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jim C. Nasby wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 11:44:44AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> The path of least resistance might just be to not run these tests in >>> parallel. The chance of this issue causing problems in the real world >>> seems small. >>

[HACKERS] ERROR: could not open relation with OID 909391158

2006-07-31 Thread Jim Buttafuoco
Hackers, I have been loading 200+ million call records into a new Postgresql 8.1.4 install. Everything has been going great until a couple of minutes ago. After the process loads a single file (300k to 500k records), it summaries the data into a summary table. I have been getting the followin

Re: [HACKERS] Going for "all green" buildfarm results

2006-07-31 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 11:44:44AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: The path of least resistance might just be to not run these tests in parallel. The chance of this issue causing problems in the real w

Re: [HACKERS] Going for "all green" buildfarm results

2006-07-31 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >>> Jim C. Nasby wrote: >>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 11:44:44AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > The path of least resistance might just be to not run these tests in > parallel.

Re: [HACKERS] Going for "all green" buildfarm results

2006-07-31 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > How sure are we that this is the cause of the problem? The feeling I got > > was "this is a good guess". If so, do we want to prevent ourselves > > getting any further clues in case we're wrong? It's also an interesting > > case of a (low lik

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] extension for sql update

2006-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2006 22:58 schrieb Tom Lane: >> The reason people want this syntax is that they expect to be >> able to write, say, >> UPDATE mytab SET (foo, bar, baz) = >> (SELECT alpha, beta, gamma FROM othertab WHERE key = mytab.key); > I don

[HACKERS] Postgres Process in Kernel Mode?

2006-07-31 Thread moises
Hello,   I’m new in postgres SQL and I have some questions about the space where postgres process run.     1-Can any body say me what libs use postgres for make system calls, for example LIBC? 2-Can any body talk me if some postgres process can run in Linux kernel space? 3- Some bo

Re: [HACKERS] Going for "all green" buildfarm results

2006-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Maybe we could write a suitable test case using Martijn's concurrent > testing framework. The trick is to get process A to commit between the times that process B looks at the new and old versions of the pg_class row (and it has to happen to do so in th

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres Process in Kernel Mode?

2006-07-31 Thread Alvaro Herrera
moises wrote: > 1-Can any body say me what libs use postgres for make system calls, for > example LIBC? libc and a lot others. > 2-Can any body talk me if some postgres process can run in Linux kernel > space? No. > 3- Some body knows if exist some projects that ports postgres process on > L

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres Process in Kernel Mode?

2006-07-31 Thread Chris Browne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("moises") writes: > xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40";> > > > > > >