Re: [HACKERS] Race between SELECT and ALTER TABLE NO INHERIT

On 2017/09/15 15:36, Amit Langote wrote: > The fact that > parent is locked after the child and with ShareUpdateExclusiveLock instead > of AccessExclusiveLock, we observe this race condition when SELECTing from > the parent. Oops, I meant "parent table is locked with AccessShareLock instead of Acc

Re: [HACKERS] Race between SELECT and ALTER TABLE NO INHERIT

Hi. On 2017/08/28 18:28, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > << the following is another topic >> > BTW, in the partitioned table case, the parent is always locked first using an AccessExclusiveLock. There are other considerations in that case such as needing to recreate the partition desc

Re: [HACKERS] Add Roman numeral conversion to to_number

Ah. Sorry I missed them - I'll give them a look. (Won't be able to get to it until Saturday though.) On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:06 PM Oliver Ford wrote: > I'll fix the brace, but there are two other patches in the first email for > tests and docs. For some reason the commitfest app didn't pick th

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Thom Brown wrote: > On 14 September 2017 at 09:58, amul sul wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Jesper Pedersen > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Amul, > >> > >> On 09/08/2017 08:40 AM, amul sul wrote: > >>> > >>> Rebased 0002 against this commit & renamed to 0001

Re: [HACKERS] utility commands benefiting from parallel plan

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Rafia Sabih wrote: > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Rafia Sabih < > rafia.sa...@enterprisedb.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Haribabu Kommi > >> wrote: > >> > > >>

Re: [HACKERS] Optimise default partition scanning while adding new partition

On 2017/09/15 0:59, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Jeevan Ladhe > wrote: >> Thanks Amit for reviewing. >>> Patch looks fine to me. By the way, why don't we just say "Can we skip >>> scanning part_rel?" in the comment before the newly added call to >>> PartConstraintImpliedB

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing

Great, thanks Pierre! I don't have a chance to try the patch tonight, but I will on the weekend if no one else beats me to it. On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:53 PM Pierre Ducroquet wrote: > On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 2:06:50 AM CEST Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > > On 05 Jul 2017, at 08:32, Mic

Re: [HACKERS] Add Roman numeral conversion to to_number

I'll fix the brace, but there are two other patches in the first email for tests and docs. For some reason the commitfest app didn't pick them up. On Friday, 15 September 2017, Doug Doole wrote: > The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: > make installcheck-world:

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

Hi Dilip, Thanks for looking at the patch. On 2017/09/15 13:43, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Amit Langote >> [PATCH 2/5] WIP: planner-side changes for partition-pruning >> >> This patch adds a stub get_partitions_for_keys in partition.c with a >> suitable interface for the

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/09/04 10:10, Amit Langote wrote: >> On 2017/09/02 2:52, Robert Haas wrote: > > [PATCH 2/5] WIP: planner-side changes for partition-pruning > > This patch adds a stub get_partitions_for_keys in partition.c with a > suitable interface fo

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add support for coordinating record typmods among parallel worke

Andres Freund writes: > Sorry for missing that during review - unfortunately I don't have a computer > with me now - so I won't get around to this till tomorrow... It turns out that this breaks my local build, too, so I went ahead and pushed a fix. At least two buildfarm members think there's s

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: passwordcheck: Add test suite

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> passwordcheck: Add test suite >> >> Also improve one error message. >> >> Reviewed-by: David Steele > > Sorry for showing up late for this topic. > +REGRESS_OPTS = --temp-confi

Re: [HACKERS] POC: Sharing record typmods between backends

Thomas Munro writes: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> - added typedefs to typedefs.list > Should I do this manually with future patches? FWIW, I'm not on board with that. I think the version of typedefs.list in the tree should reflect the last official pgindent run.

Re: [HACKERS] POC: Sharing record typmods between backends

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-09-04 18:14:39 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: >> Thanks for the review and commits so far. Here's a rebased, debugged >> and pgindented version of the remaining patches. > > I've pushed this with minor modifications: Thank you! > - add

Re: [HACKERS] POC: Sharing record typmods between backends

Hi, On 2017-09-04 18:14:39 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > Thanks for the review and commits so far. Here's a rebased, debugged > and pgindented version of the remaining patches. I've pushed this with minor modifications: - added typedefs to typedefs.list - re-pgindented, there were some missing re

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: passwordcheck: Add test suite

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > passwordcheck: Add test suite > > Also improve one error message. > > Reviewed-by: David Steele Sorry for showing up late for this topic. +REGRESS_OPTS = --temp-config $(srcdir)/passwordcheck.conf +REGRESS = passwordcheck +# disabled be

Re: [HACKERS] additional contrib test suites

On 9/14/17 11:01, David Steele wrote: > On 9/8/17 1:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> >> Yes, some of the error messages had changed. Fixed patches attached. > > Patches apply and all tests pass. A few comments: > > * [PATCH v2 1/7] adminpack: Add test suite > > There are no regular tests for

Re: [HACKERS] parallelize queries containing initplans

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Haribabu Kommi >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Thanks for adding more details. It is easy to understand. >>> >>> I marked the patch as ready for committer in the c

Re: [HACKERS] Trouble with amcheck

Stephen Frost writes: > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: >> I'm very unconvinced by this, given that one use of installcheck is to >> run against an existing server. For which one might not even have access >> to the relevant directories to install extensions into. > Sure, but if the e

Re: [HACKERS] Trouble with amcheck

On 2017-09-14 22:36:38 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > Andres, > > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > > On 2017-09-15 02:22:49 +, Douglas Doole wrote: > > > Thanks all. Making and installing the contribs got me rolling again. (I > > > tried "make world" but ran into trouble with the X

Re: [HACKERS] Trouble with amcheck

Andres, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-09-15 02:22:49 +, Douglas Doole wrote: > > Thanks all. Making and installing the contribs got me rolling again. (I > > tried "make world" but ran into trouble with the XML docs. But that's pain > > and suffering for another day.) >

Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use

Peter Eisentraut writes: > 0005-Make-casting-between-bool-and-GinTernaryValue-more-r.patch > 0008-Use-stdbool.h-if-available.patch > These need some more work based on Tom's feedback. > Attached is a new patch set. Based on the discussion so far, 0001 > through 0007 might be ready; the other tw

Re: [HACKERS] Trouble with amcheck

On 2017-09-15 02:22:49 +, Douglas Doole wrote: > Thanks all. Making and installing the contribs got me rolling again. (I > tried "make world" but ran into trouble with the XML docs. But that's pain > and suffering for another day.) > > I'd agree that "make installcheck-world" should imply that

Re: [HACKERS] Trouble with amcheck

Thanks all. Making and installing the contribs got me rolling again. (I tried "make world" but ran into trouble with the XML docs. But that's pain and suffering for another day.) I'd agree that "make installcheck-world" should imply that all prereqs are met - that's certainsly the normal behaviour

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 2017/09/15 10:55, David Rowley wrote: > On 21 August 2017 at 18:37, Amit Langote > wrote: >> I've been working on implementing a way to perform plan-time >> partition-pruning that is hopefully faster than the current method of >> using constraint exclusion to prune each of the potentially many

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers)

Michael, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > No, one of the baseline requirements of pg_upgrade is to *not* screw > > with the existing cluster. Removing its WAL or "cleaning it up" > > definitely seems like it's viola

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 21 August 2017 at 18:37, Amit Langote wrote: > I've been working on implementing a way to perform plan-time > partition-pruning that is hopefully faster than the current method of > using constraint exclusion to prune each of the potentially many > partitions one-by-one. It's not fully cooked

Re: [HACKERS] Trouble with amcheck

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Yes, I was working with someone earlier today who ran into exactly the > same issue. If you don't 'make world' or make the individual contrib > modules, then 'make installcheck-world' isn't going to work. Or should installcheck-world imply

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers)

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > No, one of the baseline requirements of pg_upgrade is to *not* screw > with the existing cluster. Removing its WAL or "cleaning it up" > definitely seems like it's violating that principle. Not necessarily. Using --link it is game over for

Re: [HACKERS] Trouble with amcheck

Peter, Douglas, * Peter Geoghegan (p...@bowt.ie) wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Douglas Doole wrote: > > I just cloned PostgreSQL to a new machine today (Ubuntu 17.04). "make > > install" and "make check-world" run fine but "make installcheck-world" is > > having trouble with amcheck:

Re: [HACKERS] Process startup infrastructure is a mess

Andres, Simon, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-09-15 01:06:54 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > If we add something to an area then its a good time to refactor it > > since we were going to get bugs anyway. > > We've added something to the area on a regular basis. As in last in

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM in the PG 10 release notes

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Alvaro Hernandez wrote: >> On the JDBC driver, strictly speaking, code has not been released yet. >> It is scheduled for v 42.2.0, and maybe the wiki should also mention from >> what version of the driver it is supported (I guess for all cases, unless >> their

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers)

Michael, all, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Andreas Joseph Krogh > wrote: > > I tested upgrading from 9.6 to 10 now, using pg_upgrade, and pg_upgrade > > creates the new data-dir with pg_wal "in it" (just like regular initdb), so > > pg_up

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH : Generational memory allocator (was PATCH: two slab-like memory allocators)

On 09/14/2017 04:21 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 14 August 2017 at 01:35, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Attached is a rebased version of the Generational context, originally >> submitted with SlabContext (which was already committed into Pg 10). >> >> The main change is that I've abandoned the p

Re: [HACKERS] Add Roman numeral conversion to to_number

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, passed Implements feature: tested, passed Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:not tested Code looks fine, but one niggly complaint at line 146 of the patch fi

Re: [HACKERS] Process startup infrastructure is a mess

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Andres Freund > I think we should seriously consider doing a larger refactoring of this > soon. I've some ideas about what to do, but I'd welcome some thoughts on > whether others consider this a se

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers)

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote: > I tested upgrading from 9.6 to 10 now, using pg_upgrade, and pg_upgrade > creates the new data-dir with pg_wal "in it" (just like regular initdb), so > pg_upgrade seems not to care about where the old version's pg_xlog was. You > have

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables

On 2017/09/15 4:43, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:06 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> I have few changes to multi-level expansion patch as per discussion in >> earlier mails > > OK, I have committed > 0002-Multi-level-partitioned-table-expansion.patch with a few cosmetic > changes.

Re: [HACKERS] Small code improvement for btree

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, passed Implements feature: tested, passed Spec compliant: tested, passed Documentation:not tested Looks good to me. The new status of this patch is: Ready for Com

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

On 2017/09/15 1:37, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Amit Khandekar > wrote: >> On 14 September 2017 at 06:43, Amit Langote >>> langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >>> Attached updated patch. >> >> @@ -1222,151 +1209,130 @@ PartitionDispatch * >> RelationGetPartitionDispat

Re: [HACKERS] Process startup infrastructure is a mess

On 2017-09-15 01:06:54 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 14 September 2017 at 22:44, Andres Freund wrote: > > > The way we currently start and initialize individual postgres (sub-) > > processes is pretty complicated and duplicative. I've a couple > > complaints: > ... > > I think we should serious

Re: [HACKERS] Trouble with amcheck

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Douglas Doole wrote: > I just cloned PostgreSQL to a new machine today (Ubuntu 17.04). "make > install" and "make check-world" run fine but "make installcheck-world" is > having trouble with amcheck: > > In contrib/amcheck/results: > > CREATE EXTENSION amcheck; > E

Re: [HACKERS] Process startup infrastructure is a mess

On 14 September 2017 at 22:44, Andres Freund wrote: > The way we currently start and initialize individual postgres (sub-) > processes is pretty complicated and duplicative. I've a couple > complaints: ... > I think we should seriously consider doing a larger refactoring of this > soon. I've so

[HACKERS] Trouble with amcheck

I just cloned PostgreSQL to a new machine today (Ubuntu 17.04). "make install" and "make check-world" run fine but "make installcheck-world" is having trouble with amcheck: In contrib/amcheck/results: CREATE EXTENSION amcheck; ERROR: could not open extension control file "/home/doole/pgCommunity

Re: [HACKERS] Log LDAP "diagnostic messages"?

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> BTW I added --with-ldap and --with-pam to the configure line for the >> reports in coverage.postgresql.org and the % covered in auth.c went from >> 24% to 18.9% (from very bad to ter

Re: [HACKERS] Warnings "unrecognized node type" for some DDLs with log_statement = 'ddl'

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Ashutosh Sharma > wrote: >> Hmm...I am also able to reproduce the failures reported by you. Your >> patch does solve the problem. Just to confirm if we are still missing >> TAGS for any other Statement nodes,

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers)

På torsdag 14. september 2017 kl. 21:13:56, skrev Bruce Momjian < br...@momjian.us >: On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 08:49:24PM +0200, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote: >     I think the tablespace example is clear enough to modify for WAL and we >     instruct them right below that e

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

On 14 September 2017 at 09:58, amul sul wrote: > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Jesper Pedersen > wrote: >> >> Hi Amul, >> >> On 09/08/2017 08:40 AM, amul sul wrote: >>> >>> Rebased 0002 against this commit & renamed to 0001, PFA. >>> >> >> This patch needs a rebase. >> > > Thanks for your note

Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:58 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Second thoughts, to make things simpler. All we need for channel > binding is a connection flag that says "I require channel binding". It > could be modeled after the sslmode parameter, e.g., cbind=disable (maybe > for debugging), cbind=

[HACKERS] Process startup infrastructure is a mess

Hi, The way we currently start and initialize individual postgres (sub-) processes is pretty complicated and duplicative. I've a couple complaints: 1) It's completely non-obvious that bootstrap.c:AuxiliaryProcessMain() can get invoked both via postmaster for subprocesses (startup, wal writ

Re: [HACKERS] Warnings "unrecognized node type" for some DDLs with log_statement = 'ddl'

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > Hmm...I am also able to reproduce the failures reported by you. Your > patch does solve the problem. Just to confirm if we are still missing > TAGS for any other Statement nodes, I had a quick look into the list > given in 'nodes.h' file bu

Re: [HACKERS] Patches that don't apply or don't compile: 2017-09-12

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Thinking further, I think changing patch status automatically may never >> be a good idea; there's always going to be some amount of common sense >> applied beforehand (such as if a

Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] PG10: libpq doesn't connect to alternative hosts when some errors occur

On Thursday, September 14, 2017, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 3:23 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki > > wrote: > > Sorry again, but how can we handle this? A non-PG-developer, Tels (and > possibly someone else, IIRC) claimed that the behavior be changed during > the beta period. Why shou

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Improve geometric types

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > I recall a bit about the double-evaluation hazards. I think the > functions needs a comment describing the reasons so that anyone > kind won't try to merge them into a macro again. I think we can count on PostgreSQL developers to underst

[HACKERS] Re: [bug fix] PG10: libpq doesn't connect to alternative hosts when some errors occur

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 3:23 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > Sorry again, but how can we handle this? A non-PG-developer, Tels (and > possibly someone else, IIRC) claimed that the behavior be changed during the > beta period. Why should we do nothing? Because we do not have consensus on chan

Re: [HACKERS] Patches that don't apply or don't compile: 2017-09-12

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Thinking further, I think changing patch status automatically may never > be a good idea; there's always going to be some amount of common sense > applied beforehand (such as if a conflict is just an Oid catalog > collision, or a typo fix in

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > I think that foreign tables ought to behave as views do, where they run as > the owner rather than the invoker. No one has talked me out of it, but no > one has supported me on it either. But I think it is too late to change > that now. That'

[HACKERS] Pre-existing bug in trigger.c

While fooling with the transition-tables bug, I noticed a problem in trigger.c that has been there a very long time. AfterTriggerEndQuery correctly notes * ... Be careful here: firing a * trigger could result in query_stack being repalloc'd, so we can't save * its address across af

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Jesper Pedersen wrote: > However, it is a little bit difficult to follow the dependencies between > different partition patches, so I may not always provide sane feedback, as > seen in [1]. > > [1] > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/579077fd-8f07-aff7-39bc-b92

Re: [HACKERS] DROP SUBSCRIPTION hangs if sub is disabled in the same transaction

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 9/13/17 07:00, Arseny Sher wrote: >> On the other hand, forbidding to execute disable sub and drop sub in one >> transaction makes it impossible e.g. to drop subscription in trigger > > Disabling a subscription before dropping it isn't very useful, is it? > So I'm no

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:06 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > I have few changes to multi-level expansion patch as per discussion in > earlier mails OK, I have committed 0002-Multi-level-partitioned-table-expansion.patch with a few cosmetic changes. Phew, getting that sorted out has been an astonishi

[HACKERS] COMMIT TRIGGERs, take n, implemented with CONSTRAINT TRIGGERS

I've read through several old threads on COMMIT TRIGGERs. Rather than write a lengthy post addressing past debates, here's an implementation and demonstration of [an approximation of] COMMIT TRIGGERs with natural and _desirable_ semantics: - commit triggers run exactly once in any write transact

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Call RelationDropStorage() for broader range of object drops.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Hadi Moshayedi wrote: > > To provide more context, in cstore_fdw creating the storage is easy, we > > only need to hook into CREATE FOREIGN TABLE using event triggers. > Removing > > the storage is not that easy, for DROP FOREIGN TABLE we c

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers)

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 07:39:31PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 07:38:40PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Further, really, I think we should provide a utility to do all of the > > above instead of using rsync- and that utility should do some additional > > things, such as:

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers)

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 08:49:24PM +0200, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote: > I think the tablespace example is clear enough to modify for WAL and we > instruct them right below that example to do WAL. > >   > Well, it's not following the exact same structure as there's no > "version-directory"

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers)

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:16:33PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > Bruce, > > * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: > > I have applied the attached patch to show examples of using rsync on > > PGDATA and tablespaces, documented that rsync is only useful when in > > link mode, and explained more

Re: [HACKERS] Pluggable storage

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > Instead of modifying the Bitmap Heap and Sample scan's to avoid referring > the internal members of the HeapScanDesc, I divided the HeapScanDesc > into two parts. > > 1. StorageScanDesc > 2. HeapPageScanDesc > > The StorageScanDesc contains

Re: [HACKERS] DROP SUBSCRIPTION hangs if sub is disabled in the same transaction

On 9/12/17 15:51, Tom Lane wrote: > ISTM the second of those (refuse to drop an in-use subscription) is > by far the least surprising behavior. However, I wonder if there aren't > race conditions involved here. What if we haven't yet committed a > DROP SUBSCRIPTION, and some new worker starts up

Re: [HACKERS] DROP SUBSCRIPTION hangs if sub is disabled in the same transaction

On 9/13/17 07:00, Arseny Sher wrote: > On the other hand, forbidding to execute disable sub and drop sub in one > transaction makes it impossible e.g. to drop subscription in trigger Disabling a subscription before dropping it isn't very useful, is it? So I'm not sure this is an important use case

Re: [HACKERS] DROP SUBSCRIPTION hangs if sub is disabled in the same transaction

On 9/14/17 08:23, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 9/13/17 09:56, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut writes: >>> > - Disallow DROP SUBSCRIPTION in a transaction under certain > circumstances, for example if a transaction has previously mani

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers)

På torsdag 14. september 2017 kl. 20:39:34, skrev Bruce Momjian < br...@momjian.us >: On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 04:31:09PM +0200, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote: > På onsdag 13. september 2017 kl. 15:26:27, skrev Bruce Momjian < > br...@momjian.us>: > >     On Wed, Sep 13, 20

Re: [HACKERS] Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers)

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 04:31:09PM +0200, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote: > På onsdag 13. september 2017 kl. 15:26:27, skrev Bruce Momjian < > br...@momjian.us>: > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 01:35:17AM +0200, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote: > [snip] > > I know I'm being a little nitty-gritty he

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > On 07/27/2017 09:45 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:> Here is an updated patch. This > version allows you use the password-less > >> connection if you either are the super-user directly (which is the >> existing committed behavior), or if you are u

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup behavior on non-existent slot

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:50 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > >> Magnus Hagander wrote: >> > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Jeff Janes >> wrote: >> >> > > Should the parent process of pg_basebackup be made to respond to >> SIGCHLD? >> > > Or cal

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Call RelationDropStorage() for broader range of object drops.

On 2017-09-14 12:05:37 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > This sounds terrible. Welcome to the life of writing extensions. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

On 09/14/2017 01:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Jesper Pedersen wrote: Yeah, it would be nice to have a syntax like ) PARTITION BY HASH (col) WITH (AUTO_CREATE = 64); But then there also needs to be a way to create the 64 associated indexes too for everything to be

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Jesper Pedersen wrote: > Yeah, it would be nice to have a syntax like > > ) PARTITION BY HASH (col) WITH (AUTO_CREATE = 64); > > But then there also needs to be a way to create the 64 associated indexes > too for everything to be easy. Well, for that, there's this

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

On 09/14/2017 12:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:54 PM, David Fetter wrote: Should we be pointing the gun away from people's feet by making hash partitions that cover the space automagically when the partitioning scheme[1] is specified? In other words, do we have a good re

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use MINVALUE/MAXVALUE instead of UNBOUNDED for range partition b

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Robert, all, > > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > > > I vote for rejecting it. DDL compatibility is less valuable than other > > > compatibility. The hypothetical affected application can change its > DDL to > > > pla

Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256

On 9/12/17 19:03, Michael Paquier wrote: > Once channel binding is involved though.. This needs to be extended > and this needs careful thoughts: > * "scram-sha-256" means that the version without channel binding is > accepted. "!scram-sha-256" means that scram without channel binding is > refused.

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:54 PM, David Fetter wrote: > Should we be pointing the gun away from people's feet by making hash > partitions that cover the space automagically when the partitioning > scheme[1] is specified? In other words, do we have a good reason to have > only some of the hash par

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:43:29AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:17 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: > >> Rebased 0002 against this commit & renamed to 0001, PFA. > > > > Given that we have default partition support now, I am wondering > > whether hash partitioned tables also sh

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

Hi, On 09/14/2017 12:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Jesper Pedersen wrote: When I do CREATE TABLE mytab ( a integer NOT NULL, b integer NOT NULL, c integer, d integer ) PARTITION BY HASH (b); and create 64 partitions; CREATE TABLE mytab_p00 PARTITION

Re: [HACKERS] Log LDAP "diagnostic messages"?

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > BTW I added --with-ldap and --with-pam to the configure line for the > reports in coverage.postgresql.org and the % covered in auth.c went from > 24% to 18.9% (from very bad to terribly sad). Improved code coverage is becoming a fad. --

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Amit Khandekar wrote: > On 14 September 2017 at 06:43, Amit Langote >> langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> Attached updated patch. > > @@ -1222,151 +1209,130 @@ PartitionDispatch * > RelationGetPartitionDispatchInfo(Relation rel, >

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > I think the patch stores only non-partial paths in decreasing order, > what if partial paths having more costs follows those paths? The general picture here is that we don't want the leader to get stuck inside some long-running operation becau

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Jesper Pedersen wrote: > When I do > > CREATE TABLE mytab ( > a integer NOT NULL, > b integer NOT NULL, > c integer, > d integer > ) PARTITION BY HASH (b); > > and create 64 partitions; > > CREATE TABLE mytab_p00 PARTITION OF mytab FOR VALUES WITH (MODULUS

Re: [HACKERS] Optimise default partition scanning while adding new partition

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Jeevan Ladhe wrote: > Thanks Amit for reviewing. >> Patch looks fine to me. By the way, why don't we just say "Can we skip >> scanning part_rel?" in the comment before the newly added call to >> PartConstraintImpliedByRelConstraint()? We don't need to repeat the

Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes

On 14 September 2017 at 16:37, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > > > On 14.09.2017 13:19, Simon Riggs wrote: >> This works by looking at overall stats, and only looks at the overall >> HOT %, so its too heavyweight and coarse. >> >> I suggested storing stat info on the relcache and was expecting you >

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use MINVALUE/MAXVALUE instead of UNBOUNDED for range partition b

Robert, all, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > >> > Both Oracle and MySQL allow finite values after MAXVALUE (usually > >> > listed as "0" in code examples, e.g. see [1]). Oracle explicitly > >> > documents the fact that values af

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

Hi Amul, On 09/14/2017 04:58 AM, amul sul wrote: On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Jesper Pedersen This patch needs a rebase. Thanks for your note. ​ ​ Attached is the patch rebased on the latest master head. Also added error on ​creating ​​default partition ​for the hash partitioned table​,

Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes

On 14.09.2017 13:19, Simon Riggs wrote: On 14 September 2017 at 10:42, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: On 13.09.2017 14:00, Simon Riggs wrote: On 13 September 2017 at 11:30, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: The only reason of all this discussion about terms is that I need to choose name for corresp

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> One small problem with cutting libpq's V2 support is that the server's >>> report_fork_failure_to_client() function still sends a V2-style message. > >> We should really fix that so it reports the error as a v3 message, >> independent of rippin

Re: [HACKERS] A bug in mapping attributes in ATExecAttachPartition()

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > Since Jeevan Ladhe mentioned this patch [1] earlier this week, sending the > rebased patches here for consideration. Actually there are only 2 patches > now, because 0002 above is rendered unnecessary by ecfe59e50fb [2]. Committed 0001 and

Re: [HACKERS] Create replication slot in pg_basebackup if requested and not yet present

On 9/12/17 16:39, Michael Banck wrote: > We could split up the logic here and create the optional physical > replication slot in the main connection and the temporary one in the WAL > streamer connection, but this would keep any fragility around for > (likely more frequently used) temporary replica

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM in the PG 10 release notes

On 14/09/17 18:06, Dave Cramer wrote: On 14 September 2017 at 02:21, Alvaro Hernandez > wrote: On 14/09/17 08:57, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 09/12/2017 04:09 AM, Noah Misch wrote: On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:50:51PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wr

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use MINVALUE/MAXVALUE instead of UNBOUNDED for range partition b

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >> > Both Oracle and MySQL allow finite values after MAXVALUE (usually >> > listed as "0" in code examples, e.g. see [1]). Oracle explicitly >> > documents the fact that values after MAXVALUE are irrelevant in [1]. >> > I'm not sure if MySQL expl

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > I very much like pcinfo-for-subquery.patch, although I'm not sure if we > need to create PartitionedChildRelInfo for the sub-query parent RTE as the > patch teaches add_paths_to_append_rel() to do. ISTM, nested UNION ALL > subqueries are fla

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM in the PG 10 release notes

On 14 September 2017 at 02:21, Alvaro Hernandez wrote: > > > On 14/09/17 08:57, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> On 09/12/2017 04:09 AM, Noah Misch wrote: >> >>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:50:51PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 08:12:51AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On 11 September 2017 at 18:55, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> Do you think non-parallel-aware Append >>> will be better in any case when there is a parallel-aware append? I >>> mean to say let's try to create non-parallel-aware append only when >>> parallel-aware append is not possible. >> >> By non-para

  1   2   >