On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:56 AM, David G. Johnston
wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>>>
>>> Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is
>>> not *only* a list of names anymore.
>>>
>>> sync
On 5/31/16 4:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
The name should be closely related to what we use for #3. I could go for
max_total_parallel_workers for #2 and max_parallel_workers for #3.
Or maybe max_parallel_workers_total?
Most cluster-wide settings like this are named max_something
(max_connections, m
> From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Marco Atzeri
> on cygwin the postgresql binary package already include the library
> versions:
>
>/usr/bin/cygecpg-6.dll
>/usr/bin/cygecpg_compat-3.dll
>/usr/bin/cygpgtypes-3.dll
>
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
> From the document about statement_timeout (config.sgml):
>
> Abort any statement that takes more than the specified number of
> milliseconds, starting from the time the command arrives at the
server
> from the client.
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I just want to point out that if we change #1, we're breaking
>>> postgresql.conf compatibility for, IMHO, not a whole lot of benefit.
>>> I'd just leave it alone.
>
>> We can add the old name as a
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 5/31/16 4:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The name should be closely related to what we use for #3. I could go for
>> max_total_parallel_workers for #2 and max_parallel_workers for #3.
>> Or maybe max_parallel_workers_total?
>
> Most cluster
Robert Haas writes:
> Now, this case is a little trickier. If we called it simply
> parallel_degree rather than max_parallel_degree, then it would have
> the same name as the reloption. But the reloption sets an exact
> value, and the GUC sets a cap, which is a significant difference.
The relop
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 08:08:15PM +0300, Васильев Дмитрий wrote:
>> I suddenly found commit ac1d794 gives up to 3 times performance degradation.
>>
>> I tried to run pgbench -s 1000 -j 48 -c 48 -S -M prepared on 70 CPU-core
>> machine:
>> commi
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Now, this case is a little trickier. If we called it simply
>> parallel_degree rather than max_parallel_degree, then it would have
>> the same name as the reloption. But the reloption sets an exact
>> value, and the GUC
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> contain_volatile_functions_walker is duplicated, near entirely, in
>> contain_volatile_functions_not_nextval_walker.
>
> Previously, I also had same observation.
>
>> Wouldn't it have
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The reloption does not set an exact value, according to the code:
> True, max_parallel_degree is an overriding limit. But the point is
> that, without the reloption, you can't get lots of workers on a small
> table. The
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The reloption does not set an exact value, according to the code:
>
>> True, max_parallel_degree is an overriding limit. But the point is
>> that, without the relopti
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:09:05PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 08:08:15PM +0300, Васильев Дмитрий wrote:
> >> I suddenly found commit ac1d794 gives up to 3 times performance
> >> degradation.
> >>
> >> I tried to run p
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 1:44 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 04:42:48PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > On 2016-05-02 14:48:18 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > + charnew_vmbuf[BLCKSZ];
>> > +
Noah Misch writes:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:09:05PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> What I *think* is going on here is:
>> - ac1d794 lowered performance
>> - backend_flush_after with a non-zero default lowered performance with
>> a vengeance
>> - 98a64d0 repaired the damage done by ac1d794, or mu
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 01:31:24AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 12:53:13PM +, Clément Prévost wrote:
> > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:50 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I think it's a good idea to run a force-parallel run on some buildfarm
> > > members. But I'm rather convince
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:09:05PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> What I *think* is going on here is:
>>> - ac1d794 lowered performance
>>> - backend_flush_after with a non-zero default lowered performance with
>>> a vengean
> From: Michael Meskes [mailto:mes...@postgresql.org]
> e.g. a random hit from google:=C2=A0https://www.bottomupcs.com/libra
> ries_and_the_linker.xhtml
>
> There even is a wikipedia page about
> it:=C2=A0https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Soname
Thank you for good pointers. The former is particul
Hi all,
While hacking a background worker for Windows/Linux that is sending
signals to the Postmaster depending on the state of the server where
Postgres is running (particularly after a certain size threshold is
reached on the partition of PGDATA SIGINT is sent to PostmasterPid to
have it stop cl
On 1 June 2016 at 11:48, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Could it be possible to mark PostmasterPid with PGDLLIMPORT on HEAD
> and back-branches?
>
Sounds sensible to me.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Hi,
In PostgreSQL , does the order in which the criteria is given matter ??
For example
Query 1 : Select * from TABLE where a > 5 and b < 10;
Query 2 : Select * from TABLE where b <10 and a > 5;
Are query 1 and query 2 the same in PostgreSQL or different ?? If its
different , WHY ??
Than
On 30 May 2016 at 11:04, Tsunakawa, Takayuki <
tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to ask you about the policy of application binary compatibility.
> And have a suggestion as well.
>
> QUESTION
> ==
>
> My customer asked me
On 1 June 2016 at 08:33, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > FWIW, I think the existing behavior is just fine. It corresponds to what
> > PQexec has always done with multi-statement query strings; that is,
> > statement_timeout governs the total time to execute the transaction (the
> > whole query string, u
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Craig Ringer
While that's probably OK, it's not especially desirable. The typical Windows
deployment model involves the application bundling all its direct dependencies
except when those are provide
On 1 June 2016 at 13:09, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:
> pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Craig Ringer
>
> While that's probably OK, it's not especially desirable. The typical
> Windows deployment model involves the application bund
On 2016/05/31 14:53, Amit Langote wrote:
On 2016/05/30 22:59, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 30 May 2016 at 16:17, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
That's a good point, but the basic idea is to send the local query
almost-as-is to the remote server if possible. For example, if the local
query is "INSERT INTO f
At Tue, 31 May 2016 12:29:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in
<7445.1464712...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes:
> > At Fri, 27 May 2016 13:20:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in
> > <14603.1464369...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> >> Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes:
> >>> By the way, the reason of the "invalid snapshot
101 - 127 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
