Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > Attached updated set of patches, including the fix to make the new pruning > code handle Boolean partitioning. > Hi Amit, I have tried pruning for different values of constraint exclusion GUC change, not sure

Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

Ah, there is one reason not to use a mapping to CTEs to implement MERGE: it might be faster to use a single query that is a FULL OUTER JOIN of the source and target to drive the update/insert/delete operations. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Amit Khandekar wrote: > Thomas, can you please try the attached incremental patch > regress_locale_changes.patch and check if the test passes ? The patch > is to be applied on the main v22 patch. If the test passes, I will > include these

Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

Hi David. Thanks for the review. (..also looking at the comments you sent earlier today.) On 2017/11/07 11:14, David Rowley wrote: > On 7 November 2017 at 01:52, David Rowley > wrote: >> Thanks. I'll look over it all again starting my Tuesday morning. (UTC+13) >

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

On 8 November 2017 at 07:55, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> The changes to trigger.c still make me super-nervous. Hey THOMAS >> MUNRO, any chance you could review that part? > > Looking, but

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 7 November 2017 at 01:52, David Rowley wrote: > Thanks. I'll look over it all again starting my Tuesday morning. (UTC+13) Hi Amit, I had another look over this today. Apologies if any of the review seems petty. Here goes: 1. If test seems to be testing for a

Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots

Hello, At Mon, 6 Nov 2017 05:20:50 -0800, Andres Freund wrote in <20171106132050.6apzynxrqrzgh...@alap3.anarazel.de> > Hi, > > On 2017-10-31 18:43:10 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > - distance: > > how many bytes LSN can advance before the margin defined by > >

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II

Hi, * avoids wasting memory on duplicated hash tables * avoids wasting disk space on duplicated batch files * avoids wasting CPU executing duplicate subplans What's the last one referring to? +static void +MultiExecParallelHash(HashState *node) +{ + switch

Re: [HACKERS] Fix bloom WAL tap test

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:58 AM, Alexander Korotkov > wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Masahiko Sawada >> wrote: >>> I understood the necessity of this

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] A hook for session start

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:58 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:14 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello >> wrote: >> I was going to to hack

Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:51 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > >>> Also, even if inheritance is used, we might still be the >>> topmost scan/join target. >> >> Sure, but in that case, it won't generate

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > The changes to trigger.c still make me super-nervous. Hey THOMAS > MUNRO, any chance you could review that part? Looking, but here's one silly thing that jumped out at me while getting started with this patch. I cannot

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Expand empty end tag

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Expand empty end tag Perhaps you missed this patch? https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJrrPGdkL8TFk+-VivrW637js0v_KM=ub4pBFy=nf0bpafb...@mail.gmail.com It seems to me that the information within brackets should not

Re: [HACKERS] Fix bloom WAL tap test

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:58 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> I understood the necessity of this patch and reviewed two patches. > > Good, thank you. That's clearly a bug fix. >> diff

Re: [HACKERS] Fix bloom WAL tap test

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Fabrízio Mello > wrote: >> The patch doesn't apply against master: >> >> fabrizio@macanudo:/d/postgresql (master) >> $ git apply

Re: [HACKERS] Remove duplicate setting in test/recovery/Makefile

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Hi, > > I found that EXTRA_INSTALL is doubly set at both top and bottom of the > src/test/recovery/Makefile. Is it necessary? > > Attached patch fixes this. Indeed, there is some bad overlap between d851bef and

Re: [HACKERS] Fix a typo in dsm_impl.c

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> Attached the patch for $subject. > > Committed. > Thank you! Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION

[HACKERS] Remove duplicate setting in test/recovery/Makefile

Hi, I found that EXTRA_INSTALL is doubly set at both top and bottom of the src/test/recovery/Makefile. Is it necessary? Attached patch fixes this. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center remove_duplicate_setting.patch

[HACKERS] OpenTemporaryFile() vs resowner.c

Hi hackers, Andres, Robert and Peter G rightly complained[1] that my shared temporary file patch opens a file, then calls ResourceOwnerEnlargeFiles() which can fail due to lack of memory, and then registers the file handle to make sure we don't leak it. Doh. The whole point of the separate

Re: [HACKERS] Exclude pg_internal.init from base backup

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > Thanks for the correction. I was not much aware of SGML markup usage. > While building the documentation, it raises an warning message of "empty > end-tag". > So I just added the end tag. Attached the update patch

Re: [HACKERS] Exclude pg_internal.init from base backup

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: > > The commit 98267e missed to check the empty SGML tag, attached patch > > fixes the same. > > > > -

Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 03:31:22PM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Nico Williams wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 03:25:48PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > >> Nico Williams wrote: > >> >A MERGE mapped to a DML like

Re: [HACKERS] Exclude pg_internal.init from base backup

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > The commit 98267e missed to check the empty SGML tag, attached patch > fixes the same. - pg_internal.init (found in multiple directories) + pg_internal.init (found in multiple

Re: [HACKERS] Exclude pg_internal.init from base backup

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 3:03 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 5 November 2017 at 11:55, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 4:04 AM, Michael Paquier < > michael.paqu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Petr

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II

Hi Peter, See responses to a couple of points below. I'll respond to the other points separately (ie with code/comment changes). On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> +/* >> + *

Re: [HACKERS] Refactor handling of database attributes between pg_dump and pg_dumpall

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: > > The newly added option is not recommended to be used in normal cases and > > it is used only for upgrade utilities. > > I don't know

Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Nico Williams wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 03:25:48PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> Nico Williams wrote: >> >A MERGE mapped to a DML like this: > > I needed to spend more time reading MERGE docs from other

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add ALWAYS DEFERRED option for constraints

On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 05:50:21PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Nico Williams wrote: > > Rebased (there were conflicts in the SGML files). > > Hi Nico > > FYI that version has some stray absolute paths in constraints.source: > > -COPY

Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 03:25:48PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Nico Williams wrote: > >A MERGE mapped to a DML like this: I needed to spend more time reading MERGE docs from other RDBMSes. The best MERGE so far is MS SQL Server's, which looks like: MERGE INTO

Re: [HACKERS] Exclude pg_internal.init from base backup

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:42 AM, David Steele wrote: > On 11/7/17 11:03 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 5 November 2017 at 11:55, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> >>> So +1 for documenting the difference in how these are handled, as this is >>> important to know

Re: [HACKERS] Remove secondary checkpoint

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 31 October 2017 at 12:01, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> While the mention about a manual checkpoint happening after a timed >> one will cause a full range of WAL segments to be recycled, it

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Юрий Соколов wrote: >> The same is true of unique indexes vs. non-unique. > > offtopic: recently I'd a look at setting LP_DEAD in indexes. > I didn't found huge difference between unique and non-unique indices. > There is codepath that works

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Geoghegan writes: >> My point is only that it's worth considering that this factor affects >> how representative your sympathetic case is. It's not clear how many >> PageIndexMultiDelete() calls are from

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Assert that the correct locks are held when calling PageGetLSN()

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Jacob Champion wrote: > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> Did you really test WAL replay? > > Is there a way to test this other than installcheck-world? The only > failure we've run into at

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

2017-11-08 1:11 GMT+03:00 Peter Geoghegan : > > The same is true of unique indexes vs. non-unique. offtopic: recently I'd a look at setting LP_DEAD in indexes. I didn't found huge difference between unique and non-unique indices. There is codepath that works only for unique, but it

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

Peter Geoghegan writes: > My point is only that it's worth considering that this factor affects > how representative your sympathetic case is. It's not clear how many > PageIndexMultiDelete() calls are from opportunistic calls to > _bt_vacuum_one_page(), how important that subset of

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Assert that the correct locks are held when calling PageGetLSN()

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Jacob Champion wrote: > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> It seems to me that 0001 is good for a committer lookup, that will get >> rid of all existing bugs. For 0002, what you are

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

) On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > So I think we should seriously consider the attached, but it'd be a > good idea to benchmark it on a wider variety of platforms and test > cases. > create unlogged table test3 ( > id integer PRIMARY KEY with

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> diff --git a/src/backend/utils/resowner/resowner.c >> b/src/backend/utils/resowner/resowner.c >> index 4c35ccf65eb..8b91d5a6ebe 100644 >> ---

Re: [HACKERS] Refactor handling of database attributes between pg_dump and pg_dumpall

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > The newly added option is not recommended to be used in normal cases and > it is used only for upgrade utilities. I don't know why it couldn't be used in normal cases. That seems like a totally legitimate thing

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Overestimated filter cost and its mitigation

Robert Haas writes: > I think it would be a good idea, as Thomas says, to order the qual > clauses at an earlier stage and then remember our decision. However, > we have to think about whether that's going to increase planning time > in a noticeable way. I wonder why we

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_wal_write statistics view

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:31 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: >> Updated patch attached. > Patch rebased. I think the earlier concerns about the performance impact of this are probably very valid concerns, and I don't see how the new version of the patch gets us much closer to

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

I've been getting less and less excited about this patch, because I still couldn't measure any above-the-noise performance improvement without artificial exaggerations, and some cases seemed actually slower. However, this morning I had an epiphany: why are we sorting at all? There is no

Re: [HACKERS] Fix a typo in dsm_impl.c

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Attached the patch for $subject. Committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > +/* > + * Build the name for a given segment of a given BufFile. > + */ > +static void > +MakeSharedSegmentName(char *name, const char *buffile_name, int segment) > +{ > + snprintf(name, MAXPGPATH, "%s.%d",

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > + ResourceOwnerEnlargeFiles(CurrentResourceOwner); > + ResourceOwnerRememberFile(CurrentResourceOwner, file); > + VfdCache[file].resowner = CurrentResourceOwner; > > So maybe I'm being pedantic here, but

Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> Well, I suppose that test will fire for a baserel when the total >> number of baserels is at least 3 and there's no inheritance involved. >> But if there are 2 baserels, we're still not the topmost scan/join >> target.

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II

Hi, Here's a review of v24 +set min_parallel_table_scan_size = 0; +set parallel_setup_cost = 0; +-- Make a simple relation with well distributed keys and correctly +-- estimated size. +create table simple as + select generate_series(1, 2) AS id, 'aa'; +alter

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Overestimated filter cost and its mitigation

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 5:19 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > IIRC, only thing that changes between plan time quals and execution > time quals is constaint folding of constant parameters. But I don't > think we change the selectivity estimates when that's done. At the >

Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 4:42 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >>> I suggest that a good thing to do more or less immediately, regardless >>> of when this patch ends up being ready, would be to insert an >>> insertion that LockAcquire() is never called while holding a lock of >>>

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] Faster processing at Gather node

Hi, On 2017-11-06 10:56:43 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Andres Freund wrote > > On 2017-11-05 01:05:59 +0100, Robert Haas wrote: > >> skip-gather-project-v1.patch does what it says on the tin. I still > >> don't have a test case for this, and I

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Assert that the correct locks are held when calling PageGetLSN()

Hi Michael, On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Did you really test WAL replay? Is there a way to test this other than installcheck-world? The only failure we've run into at the moment is in the snapshot-too-old tests. Maybe we're not configuring

Re: [HACKERS] Remove secondary checkpoint

On 31 October 2017 at 12:01, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 30 October 2017 at 18:58, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> On 30 October 2017 at 15:22, Simon Riggs

Re: [HACKERS] Fix bloom WAL tap test

Hi! On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > I understood the necessity of this patch and reviewed two patches. > Good, thank you. > For /fix-bloom-wal-check.patch, it looks good to me. I found no > problem. But for wal-check-on-bloom-check.patch, if

Re: [HACKERS] Fix bloom WAL tap test

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Fabrízio Mello wrote: > The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: > make installcheck-world: not tested > Implements feature: not tested > Spec compliant: not tested > Documentation:

Re: [HACKERS] Exclude pg_internal.init from base backup

On 11/7/17 11:03 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 5 November 2017 at 11:55, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >> So +1 for documenting the difference in how these are handled, as this is >> important to know for somebody writing an external tool for it. > > Changes made, moving to commit

Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

On 6 November 2017 at 17:35, Simon Riggs wrote: > I read that step 3 in Approach2 is some kind of problem in MVCC > semantics. My understanding is that SQL Standard allows us to define > what the semantics of the statement are in relation to concurrency, so > any semantic

Re: [HACKERS] Exclude pg_internal.init from base backup

On 5 November 2017 at 11:55, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 4:04 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Petr Jelinek >> wrote: >> > Not specific problem to this patch, but

Re: [HACKERS] Additional logging for VACUUM and ANALYZE

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > > On 11/7/17, 9:13 AM, "Fabrízio Mello" wrote: > >> int save_nestlevel; > >> + boolrel_lock; > >> > > > > Just remove the additional tab indentation before rel_lock

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

On 2017-11-07 12:12:02 -0300, Claudio Freire wrote: > If you need it. I'm not particularly fond of writing code before it's needed. +1 > Otherwise, if it's a rarely-encountered corner case, I'd recommend > simply calling the stdlib's qsort. FWIW, we always map qsort onto our own implementation:

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Юрий Соколов wrote: > > > 2017-11-07 17:15 GMT+03:00 Claudio Freire : >> Aside from requiring all that include magic, if you place specialized >> sort functions in a reusable header, using it is as simple as >>

Re: [HACKERS] Additional logging for VACUUM and ANALYZE

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: not tested Implements feature: tested, passed Spec compliant: tested, passed Documentation:tested, passed > int save_nestlevel; > + bool

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

2017-11-07 17:15 GMT+03:00 Claudio Freire : > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Юрий Соколов wrote: > > 2017-11-07 1:14 GMT+03:00 Claudio Freire : > >> > >> I haven't seen this trick used in postgres, nor do I know whether it

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Юрий Соколов wrote: > 2017-11-07 1:14 GMT+03:00 Claudio Freire : >> >> I haven't seen this trick used in postgres, nor do I know whether it >> would be well received, so this is more like throwing an idea to see >> if

Re: [HACKERS] Additional logging for VACUUM and ANALYZE

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: not tested Implements feature: not tested Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:not tested The patch doesn't apply against master anymore:

Re: [HACKERS] Fix bloom WAL tap test

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Alexander Korotkov > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Alexander Korotkov >> wrote: >>> >>> I just realized

Re: [HACKERS] Fix bloom WAL tap test

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: not tested Implements feature: not tested Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:not tested The patch doesn't apply against master: fabrizio@macanudo:/d/postgresql

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] A hook for session start

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:14 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello > wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Michael Paquier < michael.paqu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Improve geometric types

Hello, thanks for the new patch. 0004 failed to be applied on the underneath patches. At Sun, 5 Nov 2017 15:54:19 +0100, Emre Hasegeli wrote in > > I am not sure how useful NaNs are in geometric types

Re: [HACKERS] Flexible configuration for full-text search

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:47:57 +0100 Emre Hasegeli wrote: > > If we want to save this behavior, we should somehow pass a stopword > > to tsvector composition function (parsetext in ts_parse.c) for > > counter increment or increment it in another way. Currently, an > > empty

Re: [HACKERS] parallelize queries containing initplans

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> How about always returning false for PARAM_EXTERN? >> >>

Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods

On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 23:02:34 +0800 Craig Ringer wrote: > On 2 November 2017 at 17:41, Ildus Kurbangaliev > wrote: > > > In this patch compression methods is suitable for MAIN and EXTENDED > > storages like in current implementation in

Re: [HACKERS] Refactor handling of database attributes between pg_dump and pg_dumpall

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: > > Apologies for not providing much details. > > > > pg_dumpall is used to produce the following statements for database, > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_wal_write statistics view

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > Updated patch attached. > Patch rebased. Regards, Hari Babu Fujitsu Australia pg_stat_walwrites-statistics-view_v10.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list