public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Bogus duplicate-message complaints from PG mail lists
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:45:42 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?body=unsub%20pgsql-www>
Several times over the past couple of days, I have gotten complaints
like the one attached about duplicate message IDs. I can see from my
sendmail daemon's log that I sent only one copy of this, and the
complaint is dated about twenty minutes after the fact, so I'm pretty
sure the duplicate is not of my making.
Usually when I get this type of thing I can tell from the Received:
lines that it's the fault of some list subscriber's MUA re-submitting
a message to the lists. But the Received: lines in this example and
the last couple don't show that the message has gone anywhere outside
postgresql.org. So I'm thinking it's a recently-introduced glitch in
the mail list server arrangements.
regards, tom lane
------- Forwarded Message
Received: from malur.postgresql.org (malur.postgresql.org [217.196.149.56])
by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r0FKV40w002187
for <[email protected]>; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:31:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org)
by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <[email protected]>)
id 1TvD9z-00056W-US
for [email protected]; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 20:31:03 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.428 (Entity 5.428)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 20:31:03 +0000
From: [email protected]
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Subject: Denied post to pgsql-hackers
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1358281863-9659-3"
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format...
------------=_1358281863-9659-3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en
Your message to the pgsql-hackers list has been denied
for the following reason(s):
A message was previous posted with this Message-ID
Duplicate Message-ID - <[email protected]> (Tue Jan 15 20:11:10 2013)
Duplicate Message Checksum (Tue Jan 15 20:11:10 2013)
Duplicate Partial Message Checksum (Tue Jan 15 20:11:10 2013)
------------=_1358281863-9659-3
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Description: Original message
Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([98.129.198.125])
by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <[email protected]>)
id 1TvD9z-00056R-Hi
for [email protected]; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 20:31:03 +0000
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130])
by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <[email protected]>)
id 1TvCqf-0005ve-W6
for [email protected]; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 20:11:09 +0000
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r0FKB2UL001724;
Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:11:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>, Simon Riggs <[email protected]>,
Jeff Janes <[email protected]>,
pgsql-hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Slow query: bitmap scan troubles
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <CA+U5nMLjf2-kTa4-AR-0XLKKwbc+=_fb4237i_UAWYzowW+-1Q@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CA+U5nMKbOGVfQXfJi5_vOUPEatF_V_+e_HX4P5R=tb9JSo2ceA@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CA+TgmoYQ6Nq-tpHiDPCUH3CkH2N9D67=oDKJtLxuRRC=dRteSQ@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CA+Tg!moa+wzu9RBUK75veRn6UTWjSZZJa2aOjfvn0LD1_mx+rRg@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
message dated "Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:46:39 -0500"
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:11:02 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:56:37PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Remember also that "enable_seqscan=off" merely adds 1e10 to the
>> estimated cost of seqscans. For sufficiently large tables this is not
>> exactly a hard disable, just a thumb on the scales. But I don't know
>> what your definition of "extremely large indexes" is.
> Wow, do we need to bump up that value based on larger modern hardware?
I'm disinclined to bump it up very much. If it's more than about 1e16,
ordinary cost contributions would disappear into float8 roundoff error,
causing the planner to be making choices that are utterly random except
for minimizing the number of seqscans. Even at 1e14 or so you'd be
losing a lot of finer-grain distinctions. What we want is for the
behavior to be "minimize the number of seqscans but plan normally
otherwise", so those other cost contributions are still important.
Anyway, at this point we're merely speculating about what's behind
Robert's report --- I'd want to see some concrete real-world examples
before changing anything.
regards, tom lane
------------=_1358281863-9659-3--
------- End of Forwarded Message
--
Sent via pgsql-www mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-www
view thread (3+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bogus duplicate-message complaints from PG mail lists
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox