Updating parallel.sgml's treatment of parallel joins

Hi hackers, Here is an attempt at updating parallel.sgml to cover Parallel Hash. I will be neither surprised nor offended if Robert would like to put it differently! -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com update-parallel-join-docs.patch Description: Binary data

Re: Online enabling of checksums

Hi, I see the patch also does throttling by calling vacuum_delay_point(). Being able to throttle the checksum workers not to affect user activity definitely seems like a useful feature, no complaints here. But perhaps binding it to vacuum_cost_limit/vacuum_cost_delay is not the best idea? I

Re: Online enabling of checksums

Greetings, * Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 02/24/2018 03:11 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2018-02-24 03:07:28 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: > >> I agree having to restart the whole operation after a crash is not > >> ideal, but I don't see how adding a flag actually

Re: Online enabling of checksums

On 02/24/2018 03:11 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2018-02-24 03:07:28 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> I agree having to restart the whole operation after a crash is not >> ideal, but I don't see how adding a flag actually solves it. The problem >> is the large databases often store most

Re: Translations contributions urgently needed

Tels wrote: > Last but not least I'd be able to help with the german translation, but I > have no clear idea how, or what the actual status is. Are German > translators actually needed? German, along with Russian and French, are pretty much the only translations kept fully up to date almost all

Re: Online enabling of checksums

Hi, On 2018-02-24 03:07:28 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: > I agree having to restart the whole operation after a crash is not > ideal, but I don't see how adding a flag actually solves it. The problem > is the large databases often store most of the data (>80%) in one or two > central tables (think

Re: Online enabling of checksums

On 02/24/2018 01:34 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> I would prefer that yes. But having to re-read 9TB is still significantly >> better than not being able to turn on checksums at all (state today). And >> adding a catalog

Re: Online enabling of checksums

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > I would prefer that yes. But having to re-read 9TB is still significantly > better than not being able to turn on checksums at all (state today). And > adding a catalog column for it will carry the cost of the

Re: Treating work_mem as a shared resource (Was: Parallel Hash take II)

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 6:06 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > If we switched to policy 3 and (say) work_mem were somehow > automagically adjusted to be divided by number of participants at > planning and execution time, then Parallel Hash wouldn't have to > change at all

Re: Treating work_mem as a shared resource (Was: Parallel Hash take II)

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 3:04 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >>> That having been said, I think the place where our plans most commonly >>> go wrong is where we incorrectly estimate the number of tuples by >>>

Re: BUG #15044: materialized views incompatibility with logical replication in postgres 10

Adding -hackers to this in the interest of getting it committed by Monday's wrap-up. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6e375316-91a4-7825-ef8b-9b8915ab6980%402ndquadrant.com David J. On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 8:43 PM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2/5/18

Re: parallel append vs. simple UNION ALL

On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > As I mentioned in the commit message for the Parallel Append commit > (ab72716778128fb63d54ac256adf7fe6820a1185), it's kind of sad that this > doesn't work with UNION ALL queries, which are an obvious candidate > for

Re: Translations contributions urgently needed

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > That section is meant to say, if a translation ships in 10.0 with 81% > but then drops to 79% because some backpatching changes strings, we > won't drop it in 10.2. > > In the opposite case, it would be

Re: Translations contributions urgently needed

On 2/23/18 10:48, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Thom Brown writes: >>> Something that isn't clear to me is, for a language that didn't meet >>> 80% translation for a component, if it does reach 80% after the major

Re: check error messages in SSL tests

On 2/22/18 23:58, Michael Paquier wrote: > One of the tests is failing: > t/001_ssltests.pl .. 1/62 > # Failed test 'certificate authorization fails with revoked client cert: > matches' > # at /home//git/postgres/src/test/ssl/../../../src/test/perl/TestLib.pm > line 354. > #

Re: Allow workers to override datallowconn

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 7:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: > > Here's another attempt at moving this one forward. Basically this adds a > > new GucSource being GUC_S_CLIENT_EARLY. It now runs through the > parameters > > once before

Re: Allow workers to override datallowconn

Magnus Hagander writes: > Here's another attempt at moving this one forward. Basically this adds a > new GucSource being GUC_S_CLIENT_EARLY. It now runs through the parameters > once before CheckMyDatabase, with source set to GUC_S_CLIENT_EARLY. In this > source, *only*

Re: Online enabling of checksums

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:09 PM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2/22/18 12:38, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > I'm not entirely sure which the others ones are. Auto-Vacuum obviously > > is one, which doesn't use the worker infrastructure. But I'm not sure > > which

Re: Allow workers to override datallowconn

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: > > I hacked up an attempt to do this. It does seem to work in the very > simple > > case, but it does requiring changing the order in InitPostgres() to load > > the startup

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Aggregation push-down

Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:32 AM, Antonin Houska wrote: > > I think of a variant of this: implement an universal function that tests the > > binary values for equality (besides the actual arguments, caller would have > > to > > pass

Re: Translations contributions urgently needed

On Thu, February 22, 2018 11:04 pm, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: >> Please join pgsql-translat...@postgresql.org. > > What surprises me about this thread is that apparently the sad state > of the v10 translations wasn't already discussed on that list? The

Re: Translations contributions urgently needed

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Thom Brown writes: >> Something that isn't clear to me is, for a language that didn't meet >> 80% translation for a component, if it does reach 80% after the major >> version release, does it then get shipped

Re: Translations contributions urgently needed

Thom Brown writes: > Something that isn't clear to me is, for a language that didn't meet > 80% translation for a component, if it does reach 80% after the major > version release, does it then get shipped in a minor release, or is > out of that version completely until the next

Re: Online enabling of checksums

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:48 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:24:37AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: >> I suspect I'm going to get some grief for this, but I think the time has >> come to bite the bullet and support changing databases in the same >>

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 5:44 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > Please find attached updated patches. Committed 0001 and 0002. I'm having some difficulty wrapping my head around 0003 because it has minimal comments and no useful commit message. I think, though, that it's

Re: [HACKERS] advanced partition matching algorithm for partition-wise join

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 12:14 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Appreciate you taking time for review. > > PFA updated version. Committed 0001. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: SSL passphrase prompt external command

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 08:16:12AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:14 PM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> Here is a patch that adds a way to specify an external command for >> obtaining SSL passphrases. There is a new GUC setting >>

Re: [bug fix] Cascaded standby cannot start after a clean shutdown

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:26:31AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > An other, evil, idea that I have on top of all those things is to > directly hexedit the WAL segment of the standby just at the limit where > it would receive a record from the primary and insert in it garbage > data which would

Re: Translations contributions urgently needed

On 23 February 2018 at 04:04, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: >> Please join pgsql-translat...@postgresql.org. > > What surprises me about this thread is that apparently the sad state > of the v10 translations wasn't already discussed on that

Re: FOR EACH ROW triggers on partitioned tables

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Another option is to rethink this feature from the ground up: instead of >> cloning catalog rows for each children, maybe we should have the trigger >> lookup code, when running DML on the

Re: SSL passphrase prompt external command

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:14 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Here is a patch that adds a way to specify an external command for > obtaining SSL passphrases. There is a new GUC setting > ssl_passphrase_command. > > Right now, we rely on the OpenSSL built-in

Re: FOR EACH ROW triggers on partitioned tables

Amit Langote wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Uh, wow, how have I missed that all this time! Yes, it probably does. > > I'll rework this tomorrow ... and the already committed index patch too, > > I think. > > BTW, not sure if

Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning

On 23 February 2018 at 11:40, David Rowley wrote: > On 23 February 2018 at 04:11, Jesper Pedersen > wrote: >> Are UPDATE and DELETE suppose to be supported ? > > To be honest, I had not even considered those. I can say that I had

Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning

On 23 February 2018 at 04:11, Jesper Pedersen wrote: > Are UPDATE and DELETE suppose to be supported ? To be honest, I had not even considered those. Without looking in detail I imagine it may be possible to allow this simply by setting the

Re: ERROR: left and right pathkeys do not match in mergejoin

Ah, I understand now. We can lie to the executor about the order, because when we are moving based on the second outer column, we have a stretch of equal values in the inner column, so we can consider them to be sorted whatever way we need. The patch applies cleanly, make check-world passes.

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 6:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Thomas Munro > wrote:> >> The best solution I have come up with so far is to add a reference >> count to SERIALIZABLEXACT. I toyed with putting the

Isolation tester result formatting

Hi hackers, Due to recent naming inflation, the isolation tester output has become jagged (when viewed in a monospace font): test lock-update-delete ... ok test lock-update-traversal... ok test insert-conflict-do-nothing ... ok test insert-conflict-do-nothing-2 ... ok test

Re: RTLD_GLOBAL (& JIT inlining)

Hi, On 2018-02-22 23:11:07 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > I think using RTLD_LOCAL on most machines would be a much better > idea. I've not found proper explanations why GLOBAL is used. We started > using it ages ago, with [2], but that commit contains no explanation, > and a quick search didn't