Re: [HACKERS] GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.

Sorry I'd like to make a trivial but critical fix. At Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:45:05 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote in <20180319.144505.166111203.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > At Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:12:58 +0900, Masahiko Sawada

Re: [HACKERS] GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.

At Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:12:58 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote in

Re: User defined data types in Logical Replication

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:24 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: > >> > I think this is a worthwhile test, but IMO it should be improved a bit >> > before we include

Re: [HACKERS] GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:25 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:40 AM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> >> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 3:40 AM, Alexander Korotkov >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at

Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries

Hi, On 2018-03-19 01:52:41 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: > I do agree with that. We have a working well-understood dsm-based > solution, addressing the goals initially explained in this thread. Well, it's also awkward and manual to use. I do think that's something we've to pay attention to. > I

Re: HELP

On 18 March 2018 at 04:08, Projat Banerjee wrote: > What is the type of proposal should I submit here ? What kind or on what > basis should I build my proposal so that I may get easily selected or > chances for my selection is high ? > > Are you asking about Google

Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries

On 03/17/2018 05:43 AM, Arthur Zakirov wrote: > Hello Tomas, > > Arthur, what are your plans with this patch in the current CF? > > > I think dsm-based approach is in good shape already and works nice. > I've planned only to improve the documentation a little. Also it seems I > should

Re: ECPG installcheck tests fail if PGDATABASE is set

Andres Freund writes: > On 2018-03-18 19:30:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Is it sane for pg_regress to unset PGDATABASE unconditionally? Not >> sure, but if we're generally always specifying a value, maybe that's >> OK. > I'm not sure either. I wonder whether we should just

Re: Flexible permissions for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW

Isaac Morland writes: > The original idea was to allow access to REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW to be a > grantable permission, rather than being reserved to the table owner. I'm not really on board with making that a separately grantable permission. You can do what you need

Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility

On 03/18/18 19:28, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > It seems expensive to regex over BLCKSZ, but it’s probably the safest option > and it’s not a performance critical codepath. Feel free to whack the test > patch over the head with the above diff. Both patches in a single email for cfbot's enjoyment,

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: multivariate histograms and MCV lists

Hi, Attached is an updated version of the patch series, addressing issues pointed out by Alvaro. Let me go through the main changes: 1) I've updated / reworked the docs, updating the XML docs. There were some obsolete references to functions that got renamed later, and I've also reworked some

Re: ECPG installcheck tests fail if PGDATABASE is set

Hi, On 2018-03-18 19:30:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On March 18, 2018 4:06:18 PM PDT, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Hm ... pg_regress unsets PGDATABASE, along with the other related > >> environment variables, when it has a temp

Re: ECPG installcheck tests fail if PGDATABASE is set

Andres Freund writes: > On March 18, 2018 4:06:18 PM PDT, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hm ... pg_regress unsets PGDATABASE, along with the other related >> environment variables, when it has a temp installation but not >> when it doesn't. So what I don't understand

Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility

> On 18 Mar 2018, at 22:54, Chapman Flack wrote: > > On 03/18/18 16:56, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> sorry about that. Now we know that the proposed test fails without the patch >> applied and clears with it, that was at least an interesting side effect =) > > It was, and

Re: ECPG installcheck tests fail if PGDATABASE is set

On March 18, 2018 4:06:18 PM PDT, Tom Lane wrote: >Andres Freund writes: >> I got a bit confused running installcheck-world and seeing ecpg >> failures like: >> ... >> A bit of pondering pointed me towards my environment's >> PGDATABASE=postgres being to

Re: ECPG installcheck tests fail if PGDATABASE is set

Andres Freund writes: > I got a bit confused running installcheck-world and seeing ecpg > failures like: > ... > A bit of pondering pointed me towards my environment's > PGDATABASE=postgres being to blame. Unsetting that makes the test > succeed. Hm ... pg_regress unsets

Re: Online enabling of checksums

> On 18 Mar 2018, at 15:02, Michael Banck wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 02:01:26PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >>> On 10 Mar 2018, at 16:09, Michael Banck wrote: >>> I am aware that this is discussed already, but as-is the user

HELP

What is the type of proposal should I submit here ? What kind or on what basis should I build my proposal so that I may get easily selected or chances for my selection is high ? Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Re: MCV lists for highly skewed distributions

On 18 March 2018 at 12:24, John Naylor wrote: > Over the weekend I tried out a test to measure: > -The size of the MCV list > -The ratio between actual and estimated cardinality of the least > common value in the MCV list. > -The ratio between actual and estimated cardinality

Fixing some issues in matview.c's refresh-query construction

While looking at the performance problem Jeff Janes reported recently[1], I noticed several other pre-existing deficiencies in the way that refresh_by_match_merge() generates its query for constructing the diff table: 1. It doesn't require the selected unique index(es) to be indimmediate. Perhaps

Re: strange failure in plpgsql_control tests (on fulmar, ICC 14.0.3)

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2018-03-17 14:20:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> It might be worth studying the icc manual to see if it has an >>> equivalent of

Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility

On 03/18/18 16:56, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > sorry about that. Now we know that the proposed test fails without the patch > applied and clears with it, that was at least an interesting side effect =) It was, and it got me looking at the test, and even though it does detect the difference

Re: strange failure in plpgsql_control tests (on fulmar, ICC 14.0.3)

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-03-17 14:20:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> It might be worth studying the icc manual to see if it has an >> equivalent of -fwrapv. > > Yes. > > A *quick* look through https://software.intel.com/en-us/node/522795 >

Re: include/pgtar.h is missing include guards?

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi Magnus, > > Was $subject intentional? > Not that I can recall, and I can't see why. I think that's just a mistake. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ Work:

Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility

> On 18 Mar 2018, at 03:09, Tom Lane wrote: > > Chapman Flack writes: >> Thanks for the review. I notice that cfbot has now flagged the patch as >> failing, and when I look into it, it appears that cfbot is building with >> your test patch, and without

jsonb nesting level edge case

Hi, I've just realized, that looks like there is one edge-case in the current jsonb implementation, that can be quite confusing, and I couldn't find any related discussion about it. From what I see there is no limit for how many nested levels can be in a jsonb field, and e.g. when a jsonb is

Re: IndexJoin memory problem using spgist and boxes

Hi, attached is the patch that uses two memory contexts. One for calling the inner consistent function, and a new one for keeping the traversal memory of the inner consistent function. I run some test to compare the memory footprints. I report the total maximum memory usage (sum of all children)

Re: Implementing SQL ASSERTION

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 12:29:50PM +, Joe Wildish wrote: > > > >> > >> This patch no longer applies. Any chance of a rebase? > >> > > > > > Attached is a rebased version of this patch. It takes into account the ACL > checking changes and a few other minor amendments. Thanks! Best,

include/pgtar.h is missing include guards?

Hi Magnus, Was $subject intentional? Greetings, Andres Freund

Lexically-scoped options

The SQL standard overloads WITH in a query to supply not only CTEs but also lexically-scoped option settings: WITH XMLBINARY BASE64, foo(bar) AS (VALUES('\xDEADBEEF'::bytea)) SELECT XMLELEMENT(name foo, XMLATTRIBUTES(bar)) FROM foo; PG already implements XMLBINARY and XMLOPTION using the GUC

Re: Google Summer of Code: Potential Applicant

I am very sorry I didn't know that. It's just that I really want to improve my proposal as much as possible. Should I send you my proposal here? BTW it is on the project: implementation and benchmarking of shorting algorithms On Sun, Mar 18, 2018, 7:55 PM Andrey Borodin

Re: Google Summer of Code: Potential Applicant

Hi Christos! > 18 марта 2018 г., в 22:09, Christos Maris > написал(а): > > Has this email been sent to the list successfully? > > I didn't get any replies! > > On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Christos Maris

Re: Google Summer of Code: Potential Applicant

Has this email been sent to the list successfully? I didn't get any replies! On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Christos Maris wrote: > I just submitted my draft proposal. > > Could you please take a look at it and give me any feedback on how to > improve it? > >

[GSoC] Proposal Submission

Hi all, I have submitted my proposal and sent an email asking for feedback in the last 24 hours, but I didn't get any. Could you please give me some feedback on how to improve it? Thanks a lot in advance!

Re: [GSoC 2018] Proposal Draft

Hi Kefar! > 18 марта 2018 г., в 5:34, Kefan Yang написал(а): > > I am Kefan Yang, a third-year Computing Science student from Simon Fraser > University, Canada. I am very interested in the sorting algorithm > benchmarking and implementation issue you mentioned on the

Re: Recently-introduced segfault in initdb?

On 18 March 2018 at 05:57, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Isaac Morland wrote: > > OK, I must have done something wrong with the bisect the first time. Now > > I'm getting the following as the problem commit: > > > > fd1a421fe66173fb9b85d3fe150afde8e812cbe4 is the first bad

Re: Online enabling of checksums

Hi! > 18 марта 2018 г., в 19:02, Michael Banck > написал(а): > > Otherwise, I had a quick look over v4 and found no further issues. > Hopefully I will be able to test it on some bigger test databases next > week. > > I'm switching the state back to 'Waiting on

Re: Online enabling of checksums

Hi, On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 02:01:26PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > On 10 Mar 2018, at 16:09, Michael Banck wrote: > > I am aware that this is discussed already, but as-is the user experience > > is pretty bad, I think pg_enable_data_checksums() should either

Re: MCV lists for highly skewed distributions

I wrote: > Looks good. I'll run some tests of my own this week, trying to find > corner cases different from yours. Over the weekend I tried out a test to measure: -The size of the MCV list -The ratio between actual and estimated cardinality of the least common value in the MCV list. -The ratio

Re: Recently-introduced segfault in initdb?

Isaac Morland wrote: > OK, I must have done something wrong with the bisect the first time. Now > I'm getting the following as the problem commit: > > fd1a421fe66173fb9b85d3fe150afde8e812cbe4 is the first bad commit Did you run "make distclean" before git-pulling? If not, maybe what you have is

Re: Recently-introduced segfault in initdb?

OK, I must have done something wrong with the bisect the first time. Now I'm getting the following as the problem commit: fd1a421fe66173fb9b85d3fe150afde8e812cbe4 is the first bad commit commit fd1a421fe66173fb9b85d3fe150afde8e812cbe4 Author: Peter Eisentraut Date: Fri Mar

Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 5:43 PM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > >> >> >> As you know, there is an ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE + partitioning patch in >> the works from Alvaro. In your explanation about