Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE of partition key

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 5:18 PM, amul sul wrote: > On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 7:07 AM, amul sul wrote: >>> Attaching POC patch that throws an error in the case of a concurrent update

Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods

Hi, I ran into another issue - after inserting some data into a table with a tsvector column (without any compression defined), I can no longer read the data. This is what I get in the console: db=# select max(md5(body_tsvector::text)) from messages; ERROR: cache lookup failed for compression

Re: [HACKERS] ginInsertCleanup called from vacuum could still miss tuples to be deleted

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: >> We see this for the entry tree (no deletion is possible in the first >> place), and we also see it for the posting tree (the dance with >> inserters having a pin on the root, and so on). Not mentioning why >> pending list

Re: [HACKERS] ginInsertCleanup called from vacuum could still miss tuples to be deleted

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > > The only reference to super-exclusive lock in > src/backend/access/gin/README, > > that I can find, is about posting trees, not pending lists.

Re: explain analyze output with parallel workers - question about meaning of information for explain.depesz.com

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 4:51 PM, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: > Hi, > > up to parallel executions, when we had node in explain analyze showing > "loops=x" with x more than 1, it meant that the "actual time" had to be > multiplied by loops to get real time spent in a node. >

Re: [HACKERS] ginInsertCleanup called from vacuum could still miss tuples to be deleted

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: > > Agreed, that's better. Attached updated patch. > > Also I've added this to the next CF so as not to forget. > > Committed and

Re: Add RANGE with values and exclusions clauses to the Window Functions

On 24 November 2017 at 22:11, Oliver Ford wrote: > Adds RANGE BETWEEN with a start and end value, as well as an > exclusions clause, to the window functions. This partially resolves > TODO list item "Implement full support for window framing clauses". > Yay! I'll try to take

Re: [HACKERS] proposal - Default namespaces for XPath expressions (PostgreSQL 11)

2017-11-24 18:13 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule : > > > 2017-11-24 17:53 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule : > >> Hi >> >> 2017-11-22 22:49 GMT+01:00 Thomas Munro : >> >>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Pavel Stehule

Re: [HACKERS] proposal - Default namespaces for XPath expressions (PostgreSQL 11)

2017-11-24 17:53 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule : > Hi > > 2017-11-22 22:49 GMT+01:00 Thomas Munro : > >> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Pavel Stehule >> wrote: >> > Attached new version. >> >> Hi Pavel, >> >> FYI my

Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE of partition key

A typo in all the messages the patch adds: "to an another" -> "to another" -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Re: [HACKERS] More stats about skipped vacuums

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:09 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Yes, my concern here is how many column we can allow in a stats > view. I think I'm a bit too warried about that. I think that's a good thing to worry about. In the past, Tom has expressed reluctance

Re: default range partition and constraint exclusion

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >>> If all predicate_refuted_by() receives is the expression tree (AND/OR) >>> with individual nodes being strict clauses involving partition keys (and >>> nothing about the nullness of the keys), the downstream

Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE of partition key

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 6:48 AM, amul sul wrote: > And remaining are EvalPlanQualFetch, ExecOnConflictUpdate, > RelationFindReplTupleByIndex & RelationFindReplTupleSeq. Note that check in > RelationFindReplTupleByIndex & RelationFindReplTupleSeq will have LOG not an > ERROR.

Re: Add RANGE with values and exclusions clauses to the Window Functions

On 2017-11-24 15:11, Oliver Ford wrote: Adds RANGE BETWEEN with a start and end value, as well as an exclusions clause, to the window functions. This partially resolves TODO list item "Implement full support for window framing clauses". [0001-window-frame-v1.patch] (debian 8) make check

Re: [HACKERS] Commits don't block for synchronous replication

On 23 November 2017 at 11:11, Michael Paquier wrote: > This is older than the bug report of this thread. All those > indications point out that the patch has *not* been committed. So it > seems to me that you perhaps committed it to your local repository, > but forgot

Add RANGE with values and exclusions clauses to the Window Functions

Adds RANGE BETWEEN with a start and end value, as well as an exclusions clause, to the window functions. This partially resolves TODO list item "Implement full support for window framing clauses". == Specification == The window functions already allow a "ROWS BETWEEN start_value

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Separate log file for extension

Antonin Houska wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Antonin Houska wrote: > > > > > I like this idea in general. > > > > Then it's supposed to change some of its attributes > > > > >

Re: scan-build plpython stuff

Peter, I built plpython with scan-build using Python 2.7.12 and Clang 3.8. On master, I got 13 warnings, and with your patches only one warning (report attached). Make installcheck passes. Let me know if I can test anything else. -John Naylor Title: plpy_spi.c Bug

Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers

Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Masahiko Sawada > > wrote: > >> > >> Because I don't want to break the current user semantics.

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 2:22 PM, amul sul wrote: > Look like it is the same crash what v20 claim to be fixed, indeed I > missed to add fix[1] in v20 patch, sorry about that. Attached updated > patch includes aforementioned fix. Hi, I have applied latest v21 patch, it got

Re: documentation is now XML

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> The documentation sources are now DocBook XML, not SGML. (The files are >> still named *.sgml. That's something to think about separately.) > > I think we should

Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods

On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 21:54:32 +0100 Tomas Vondra wrote: > > Hmm, this seems to have fixed it, but only in one direction. Consider > this: > > create table t_pglz (v text); > create table t_lz4 (v text compressed lz4); > > insert into t_pglz select