[PATCHES] Explain XML patch v2

2008-07-01 Thread Tom Raney
This is an update to my EXPLAIN XML patch submitted a few days ago. I've added a documentation patch and modified some of the code per comments by Gregory Stark. Because the main consumer of output generated by this patch will presumably be a machine, I didn't clutter up the documentation

Re: [PATCHES] LOCK_DEBUG documentation

2008-07-01 Thread Bruce Momjian
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: [ There is text before PGP section. ] > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > > Tom Lane replied: > >> Documentation patch by Kevin L. McBride explaining LOCK_DEBUG options > >> in detail. > > > Should this stuff really go into the SGML documentat

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] TRUNCATE TABLE with IDENTITY

2008-07-01 Thread Bruce Momjian
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > > 2. I had first dismissed Neil's idea of transactional sequence updates > > as impossible, but on second look it could be done. Suppose RESTART > > IDENTITY does this for each sequence; > > > > * obtain AccessExclusiveLock; > > * assign a new

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] odd output in restore mode

2008-07-01 Thread Bruce Momjian
Simon Riggs wrote: > > > * recommendation to use GnuWin32 cp on Windows > > > * provide "holdtime" delay, default 0 (on all platforms) > > > * default stays same on Windows="copy" to ensure people upgrading don't > > > get stung > > > > This seems pretty kludgey to me. I wouldn't want to install G

Re: [PATCHES][UPDATED] A GUC variable to replace PGBE_ACTIVITY_SIZE

2008-07-01 Thread Tom Lane
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Huh? How could we be assigning to a slot that is not in use? > Before the patch, we loop through the shared PgBackendStatus slots > (there is MaxBackends of them), and issue a memcpy for each to copy it > to our local slot. A

Re: [PATCHES][UPDATED] A GUC variable to replace PGBE_ACTIVITY_SIZE

2008-07-01 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Tom Lane wrote: "Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Another simple optimization occurred to me while looking at this: we should skip the memcpy/strcpy altogether if the BackendActivity slot is not in use. That seems like a good bet, you usually don't try to max out max_connections

Re: [PATCHES] Better formatting of functions in pg_dump

2008-07-01 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Tom Lane wrote: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Why the random switching between newline-before and newline-after styles? Please be consistent. I thought they were all "after". On second glance, they still seem all after? Oh, my mistake, I had failed to see that the patch

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] odd output in restore mode

2008-07-01 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 13:44 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > Patch implements > > > > * recommendation to use GnuWin32 cp on Windows > > * provide "holdtime" delay, default 0 (on all platforms) > > * default stays same on Windows="copy" to ensure people upgrading don't >

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] odd output in restore mode

2008-07-01 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: Patch implements * recommendation to use GnuWin32 cp on Windows * provide "holdtime" delay, default 0 (on all platforms) * default stays same on Windows="copy" to ensure people upgrading don't get stung This seems pretty kludgey to me. I wouldn't want to install GnuWin32 ut

Re: [PATCHES] extend VacAttrStats to allow stavalues of different types

2008-07-01 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Jan UrbaƄski wrote: Tom Lane wrote: I think the correct solution is to initialize the fields to match the column type before calling the typanalyze function. Then you don't break compatibility for existing typanalyze functions. It's also less code, since the standard typanalyze functions can r

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] odd output in restore mode

2008-07-01 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 19:29 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Dave Page wrote: > > > >> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> I don't know how you tested, > >>> > >> Copy a large file across a relatively slow n

Re: [PATCHES] VACUUM Improvements - WIP Patch

2008-07-01 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 11:02 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > In most of the cases where the old transactions quickly go away, and > for large tables, the second scan will be very limited. In the worst > case, we might incur the overhead of conditional waits without any > success. Looks good. > -