On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 03:40:27PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2017-11-21 17:09:26 -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > I'm sorry to report this previously reported problem is happening again,
> > starting shortly after pg_upgrading a customer to PG10.1 from 9.6.5.
> >
> > As $subject: ba
Craig Ringer writes:
> On 22 November 2017 at 08:43, Jankirk.Vincent., Jamison <
> k.jami...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> 1. How do you judge when a test suite is acceptable to be added to
>> Postgres OSS source code? (How do you judge the value of a test suite?)
> Make your argument for it, an
Igor,
* Igor Korot (ikoro...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Can anyone explain why?
> Why not do what other ML do - provide the links in the footer?
This has been explained multiple times in multiple ways, including at
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PGLister_Announce
Please drop it. We won't be going ba
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Jerry Regan
wrote:
> I kind of agree with both. Personally, my strengths are data communication.
> Databases are frequent end points. Mailing lists? Have never had a need to
> work with them, so they’re in the, “don’t care” bucket so long as they work.
>
>
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 22 November 2017 at 08:43, Jankirk.Vincent., Jamison
> wrote:
>> I am entirely very new to PG development.
>>
>> Currently, I’m studying the test suites, and I feel the more experienced
>> PG devs here could provide some insights on testi
On 22 November 2017 at 03:35, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
> > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:14 PM, David G. Johnston <
> > david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> What would help the majority of readers is if a rule could be added that
> >> keys off of the word "unsubscribe" (and maybe
On 22 November 2017 at 08:43, Jankirk.Vincent., Jamison <
k.jami...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Dear PG Experts,
>
>
>
> I am entirely very new to PG development.
>
> Currently, I’m studying the test suites, and I feel the more experienced
> PG devs here could provide some insights on testing because
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 03:45:58PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-11-21 18:21:16 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Justin Pryzby writes:
> > > As $subject: backends are stuck in startup for minutes at a time. I
> > > didn't
> > > strace this time, but I believe last time I saw one was waiting in
Hello,
It seems to me that the type of category is not text and the
right side in the query is actually casted to text.
At Tue, 21 Nov 2017 12:23:02 -0700 (MST), legrand legrand
wrote in <1511292182893-0.p...@n3.nabble.com>
> and if I explain the same query with an other filter
>
> explain sel
Rakesh Kumar writes:
> why is that I did not receive the first 4 emails on this topic?
Perhaps you need to adjust your mail filters.
> I see that only the old email address "pgsql-gene...@postgresql.org" is
> mentioned. Could that be the reason ?
> ps: I am adding the new lists address.
Pleas
Dear PG Experts,
I am entirely very new to PG development.
Currently, I’m studying the test suites, and I feel the more experienced PG
devs here could provide some insights on testing because I could not find
concrete answers in the Postgres documentations.
1. How do you judge when a test
why is that I did not receive the first 4 emails on this topic? I see that
only the old email address "pgsql-gene...@postgresql.org" is mentioned. Could
that be the reason ?
ps: I am adding the new lists address.
On 2017-11-21 19:02:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> and...@anarazel.de (An
I wrote:
> ... Maybe we need
> to take a closer look at where LWLocks devolve to blocking on the process
> semaphore and see if there's any implicit assumptions about barriers there.
Like, say, here:
for (;;)
{
PGSemaphoreLock(proc->sem);
On 2017-11-21 19:02:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> and...@anarazel.de (Andres Freund) writes:
> > On 2017-11-21 18:50:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> (If Justin saw that while still on 9.6, then it'd be worth looking
> >> closer.)
>
> > Right. I took this to be referring to something before the curren
and...@anarazel.de (Andres Freund) writes:
> On 2017-11-21 18:50:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (If Justin saw that while still on 9.6, then it'd be worth looking
>> closer.)
> Right. I took this to be referring to something before the current
> migration, but I might have overinterpreted things. Th
On 2017-11-21 18:50:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2017-11-21 18:21:16 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Justin Pryzby writes:
> >>> As $subject: backends are stuck in startup for minutes at a time. I
> >>> didn't
> >>> strace this time, but I believe last time I saw one was
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2017-11-21 18:21:16 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Justin Pryzby writes:
>>> As $subject: backends are stuck in startup for minutes at a time. I didn't
>>> strace this time, but I believe last time I saw one was waiting in a futex.
> A futex? Hm, that was stock postgres?
On 2017-11-21 18:21:16 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Justin Pryzby writes:
> > As $subject: backends are stuck in startup for minutes at a time. I didn't
> > strace this time, but I believe last time I saw one was waiting in a futex.
>
> Hm...
A futex? Hm, that was stock postgres?
> > I saved ~40
Hi,
On 2017-11-21 17:09:26 -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I'm sorry to report this previously reported problem is happening again,
> starting shortly after pg_upgrading a customer to PG10.1 from 9.6.5.
>
> As $subject: backends are stuck in startup for minutes at a time. I didn't
> strace this ti
Justin Pryzby writes:
> As $subject: backends are stuck in startup for minutes at a time. I didn't
> strace this time, but I believe last time I saw one was waiting in a futex.
Hm...
> I saved ~40 cores from backends from the most recent incident, which are all
> essentially identical:
This on
I'm sorry to report this previously reported problem is happening again,
starting shortly after pg_upgrading a customer to PG10.1 from 9.6.5.
As $subject: backends are stuck in startup for minutes at a time. I didn't
strace this time, but I believe last time I saw one was waiting in a futex.
pos
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Now, there's definitely something busted here; it should not have gone as
>> far as 2 million batches before giving up on splitting.
> I had been meaning to discuss this. We only give up when we reach the
> point when a
Hi,
according to the documentation, dblink_send_query sends the query to be
executed asynchronously. I tried this out in the following function and it
works as expected:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION t_par () RETURNS TABLE (
tx_time TIMESTAMP,
end_time TIMESTAMP
) AS $def$
DECLARE
v_q RE
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Now, there's definitely something busted here; it should not have gone as
> far as 2 million batches before giving up on splitting.
I had been meaning to discuss this. We only give up when we reach the
point when a batch is entirely entirely kep
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 11:46:42AM -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 11/21/2017 11:42 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > I am not sure if that is sarcasm but I think the reason is pretty self
> > explanatory. -Hackers have all the people that understand how all this
> > works, -general has all the peopl
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 11:05:37AM -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
> they did. you must not have noticed it.
I'm sorry I was misinformed, then. I'll look more carefully in my
archives and the public ones. I apologise for suggesting that this
was not properly announced.
Best regards,
A
--
Andre
I kind of agree with both. Personally, my strengths are data communication.
Databases are frequent end points. Mailing lists? Have never had a need to work
with them, so they’re in the, “don’t care” bucket so long as they work.
As far as missing , ‘unsubscribe’ in headers/titles, my totally un
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:57:32AM -0800, Alan Hodgson wrote:
> That wouldn't help; DMARC policies are based on the From: header.
This is why DKIM and DMARC are different, just to be clear.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@crankycanuck.ca
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> John R Pierce writes:
> > On 11/21/2017 11:42 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> I am not sure if that is sarcasm but I think the reason is pretty self
> >> explanatory. -Hackers have all the people that understand how all this
> >> works, -general
On 11/21/2017 12:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm not sure I believe it. People reading any database-oriented mailing
list are going to be pretty tech-savvy, I'd think.
Not to burn bytes but I think your view is narrow on this one. I am
tech-savvy although I am certainly not a hacker. The only rea
John R Pierce writes:
> On 11/21/2017 11:42 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> I am not sure if that is sarcasm but I think the reason is pretty self
>> explanatory. -Hackers have all the people that understand how all this
>> works, -general has all the people that don't.
> rotfl, and ain't that t
On 11/21/2017 11:42 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I am not sure if that is sarcasm but I think the reason is pretty self
explanatory. -Hackers have all the people that understand how all this
works, -general has all the people that don't.
rotfl, and ain't that the truth.
--
john r pierce, recy
On 11/21/2017 11:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
[ wanders away wondering why last week's migration of the hackers
lists produced far less complaining... ]
I am not sure if that is sarcasm but I think the reason is pretty self
explanatory. -Hackers have all the people that understand how all this
wor
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:14 PM, David G. Johnston <
> david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What would help the majority of readers is if a rule could be added that
>> keys off of the word "unsubscribe" (and maybe some other key phrases) and
>> dumps it into a non-public
yes it is
show constraint_exclusion
partition
and if I explain the same query with an other filter
explain select * from wiki_data_part where category='fr'
| Append (cost=0.00..14010.76 rows=291609 width=48)
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:14 PM, David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Andrew Sullivan
> wrote:
>
>> All I, at least, was trying to say was that there were some of us who
>> were entirely surprised, and I'm kind of amazed that a bunch of
>> dat
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> That would change the body of the mail. Mail that is DKIM signed (or
> worse conforms to DMARC) cannot be so changed, or it will fail
> validation and will be bounced. The bouncing system is then doing the
> correct thing, and yet it will create "excessive bounces" to th
Greetings,
* David G. Johnston (david.g.johns...@gmail.com) wrote:
> What would help the majority of readers is if a rule could be added that
> keys off of the word "unsubscribe" (and maybe some other key phrases) and
> dumps it into a non-public moderation queue where requests can be handled
> ma
Steve Atkins wrote:
> Removing Subject tagging and footers of the messages isn't an accidental
> side effect of the migration, it's (I assume) a primary goal of it.
> If that weren't done, more and more people at large consumer mailbox
> providers would increasingly have problems sending mail succ
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Andrew Sullivan
wrote:
> All I, at least, was trying to say was that there were some of us who
> were entirely surprised, and I'm kind of amazed that a bunch of
> database people didn't announce a planned migration weeks in advance.
My read on all this is that
On 11/21/2017 10:59 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
All I, at least, was trying to say was that there were some of us who
were entirely surprised, and I'm kind of amazed that a bunch of
database people didn't announce a planned migration weeks in advance.
they did. you must not have noticed it.
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 01:48:50PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> This is really all pointless.
Gee, I love it when people dismiss observations with categorical
statements. I'll remember to shut up in the future. Given my
erstwhile employer, it's probably insane for me to be posting anyway.
>
All,
* Alan Hodgson (ahodg...@lists.simkin.ca) wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 10:52 -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
> > it seems to *ME* like a simpler solution to the original problem
> > would have been to simply STRIP any DKIM out of the original
> > messages, and continue to munge
Andrew,
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:44:48PM -0600, Igor Korot wrote:
>> Why people who performed the change couldn't create a mail template
>> where the "Subscribe/Unsubscribe"
>> links would be visible at the bottom of the e-mail?
On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 10:52 -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
>
> >
>
> it seems to *ME* like a simpler solution to the original problem
> would have been to simply STRIP any DKIM out of the original
> messages, and continue to munge headers and footers like mail
> list
>
> On Nov 21, 2017, at 10:39 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 02:46:08PM -0800, Steve Atkins wrote:
>> That's poor practice, for several reasons - replay attacks with added content
>> and it being an extremely rare practice that's likely to trigger bugs in DKIM
>> validation
On 11/21/2017 10:39 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 02:46:08PM -0800, Steve Atkins wrote:
That's poor practice, for several reasons - replay attacks with added content
and it being an extremely rare practice that's likely to trigger bugs in DKIM
validation are two. The latter
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:44:48PM -0600, Igor Korot wrote:
> Why people who performed the change couldn't create a mail template
> where the "Subscribe/Unsubscribe"
> links would be visible at the bottom of the e-mail?
That would change the body of the mail. Mail that is DKIM signed (or
wor
Greetings Igor,
* Igor Korot (ikoro...@gmail.com) wrote:
> I'm curious - what was the problem in the first place?
Please review the details provided here:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PGLister_Announce
They answer the questions you're asking.
Thanks!
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: D
Andrew, all,
* Andrew Sullivan (a...@crankycanuck.ca) wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 08:40:08PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > So do you have any suggestions for actually fixing that? Given that we have
> > more lists to migrate, if you can figure out a way to make those changes
> > without p
Hi,
I'm curious - what was the problem in the first place?
Why people who performed the change couldn't create a mail template
where the "Subscribe/Unsubscribe"
links would be visible at the bottom of the e-mail?
There has to be a way of doing this sort of things. Especially if you
as a user have
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 02:46:08PM -0800, Steve Atkins wrote:
> That's poor practice, for several reasons - replay attacks with added content
> and it being an extremely rare practice that's likely to trigger bugs in DKIM
> validation are two. The latter is the much bigger deal.
>
> It also doesn'
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 08:40:08PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> Which is why the extra email was sent *after* the migration, to make sure
> it would be the first one *not* hitting peoples filters, and thus have a
> chance of being read even if the others weren't.
That surely didn't work, sin
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:36:11 +0100
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Craig Ringer
> wrote:
>
> > But really, a nightmare? Yeah, it's a pain, but I think that's
> > laying it on a bit strong. Personally I appreciate the hard and
> > usually thankless work the infrastruct
Cory Tucker writes:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:36 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> The only thing I can think of offhand that could create temp files far in
>> excess of the actual data volume is if a hash join repeatedly decides that
>> it needs to increase the number of hash batches. We have seen that h
Please unsubscribe me from all emails
Hi
what is the value of the parameter "constraint_exclusion" (in
postgresq.conf)?
You must set:
constraint_exclusion = partition
2017-11-20 17:54 GMT-05:00 legrand legrand :
> Hello,
>
> after creating a table wiki_data_part with
> partition by list (category);
>
> and creating partitions lik
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:34:27AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Have anyone noticed, that last couple of days on the list, can become a
> nice example of HOWTO turn the best list on the planet into a nightmare?
Please unsubscribe me from all PostgreSQL mailing lists.
Miguel Santos
(Kgrl)
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:02 PM, salvador santos garay-gordovil <
sgar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Please unsubscribe me from all PostgreSQL mailing lists.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Salvador Santos
>
>
>
>
>
Please unsubscribe me from all PostgreSQL mailing lists.
Best regards,
Salvador Santos
Quoting Ishan Arora :
Please unsubscribe me from all PostgreSQL mailing lists.
FROM: CLAUDIO LIVIO CANDIANI [mailto:claudio.livio.candi...@gmail.com]
SENT: 20 November 2017 13:29
TO: Marek Przywara
CC: pgsql-ad...@postgresql.org; pgsql-general@list
Please unsubscribe me from all PostgreSQL mailing lists.?
From: beena...@nic.in on behalf of Beena JayaPrakash
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 12:38
To: Ishan Arora; CLAUDIO LIVIO CANDIANI; Marek Przywara
Cc: pgsql-ad...@postgresql.org; pgsql-general@lists.post
Please unsubscribe me from all PostgreSQL mailing lists.
On 21/11/17 03:37 AM, Ishan Arora wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please unsubscribe me from all PostgreSQL mailing lists.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: CLAUDIO LIVIO CANDIANI [mailto:claudio.livio.candi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 20 November
Please unsubscribe me from all PostgreSQL mailing lists.
From: CLAUDIO LIVIO CANDIANI [mailto:claudio.livio.candi...@gmail.com]
Sent: 20 November 2017 13:29
To: Marek Przywara
Cc: pgsql-ad...@postgresql.org; pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org;
pgsql-gene...@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Unsubscri
Greetings Rafal and Craig,
* Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 21 November 2017 at 15:17, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
> > Pls forgive rudeness, but IMHO, whoever made the "upgrade" should
> > manually take all the "unsubscribe" messages from archive and do that
> > "unsubscription" by han
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Those two aren't correlated ... but I think what you want is
>
> select ...,v,f
> from
> pg_stats,
> rows from (unnest(most_common_vals::text::text[]),
> unnest(most_common_freqs)) r(v,f)
> where ...
Of course I was meaning MCVs
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 21 November 2017 at 15:17, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Have anyone noticed, that last couple of days on the list, can become a
>> nice example of HOWTO turn the best list on the planet into a nightmare?
>>
>> Pls forgive ruden
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Have anyone noticed, that last couple of days on the list, can become a
> nice example of HOWTO turn the best list on the planet into a nightmare?
>
> Pls forgive rudeness, but IMHO, whoever made the "upgrade" should
> manually t
I'm very very sorry for my rude words. I do understand and truelly appreciate continues availability of the list. I know (from my own experence) it takes signifficant effort to maintain.
Nonetheless, I do stand by opinion, that it would annoy less if the infant state of the new list servar was baby
69 matches
Mail list logo
