On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 9:28 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:06:00AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> I think that this patch might be splitted but I will be able to send
>>> an updated patch in the next week. As
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 2:00 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> While reading the replication slot codes, I found a wrong assignment
>> in pg_logical_slot_get_changes_guts() function as follows.
>>
>> if (PG_ARGISNULL(2))
>>
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:16:23AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, the issue is that new kinds of switches introduce new potential
> for bugs. In the case of -Wl,-R..., I'm not even sure that you can
> write that more than once per link, so absorbing one from xml2-config
> might well break things
Andrew Gierth writes:
> All the regexp functions blow up with "invalid memory alloc request"
> errors when the input string exceeds 256MB in length. This restriction
> does not seem to be documented anywhere that I could see.
> (Also for regexp_split* and regexp_matches, there's a limit of 64M
All the regexp functions blow up with "invalid memory alloc request"
errors when the input string exceeds 256MB in length. This restriction
does not seem to be documented anywhere that I could see.
(Also for regexp_split* and regexp_matches, there's a limit of 64M total
matches, which also
I noticed that the word "procedure" appears in at least a few places
in the v11 docs as a not-quite-apt synonym of "function". For example,
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/static/plpgsql-trigger.html talks
about "PL/pgSQL Trigger Procedures" which are actually all functions
in practice.
I
Hello Andrew,
Attached is v18, another basic rebase after some perl automatic
reindentation.
This patch contains CRLF line endings
Alas, not according to "file" nor "hexdump" (only 0A, no 0D) on my local
version, AFAICS.
What happens on the path and what is done by mail clients
Fabien COELHO writes:
>> As I explained in my comments, the reason I did not do these things
>> is that I didn't want to change the output for cases in which just a
>> single host name is given. I still don't.
> Ok, I get your argument when there is just one target server (cluster),
> which is
On 04/27/2018 12:28 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
Hello Stephen,
Attached is v18, another basic rebase after some perl automatic
reindentation.
This patch contains CRLF line endings - and in any case it doesn't apply
any more. Please fix those things.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 9:16 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> I started debugging this to see where things go wrong. I discovered
> that add_paths_to_append_rel() is called yet again from
> apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths() and this is where it's all going
> wrong. The problem is that the gather paths
>
> I don't think that's true, for two reasons.
>
> Firstly, I don't think pgq updates catalogs directly, it simply truncates
> the queue tables when rotating them (which updates the relfilenode in
> pg_class, of course).
>
> Secondly, we're occasionally seeing this on systems that do not use pgq,
On 08/13/2018 02:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
This thread appears to have gone quiet. What concerns me is that there
appears to be substantial disagreement between the author and the reviewers.
Since the last thing was this new patch it
Fabien COELHO writes:
> Patch compiles, global "make check" ok, although I'm unsure whether the
> feature is actually tested somewhere. I think not:-(
Yeah, it's hard to test this stuff without either opening up security
hazards or making unwarranted assumptions about the local network setup.
I
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oh ... never mind that last. The parent Append will run its children
> sequentially, so that the Gathers execute one at a time, and at no
> point will more than 2 workers be active.
Yep.
> Nonetheless, it's a damfool query plan, because we'll
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
> This thread appears to have gone quiet. What concerns me is that there
> appears to be substantial disagreement between the author and the reviewers.
> Since the last thing was this new patch it should really have been put back
> into
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> I was actually thinking in applying to all back-branches, not just pg11,
> considering it a fix for a pretty serious bug. But checking the
> history, it seems that Robert patched this is 9.2 as new development
> (2ad36c4e4, 1489e2f26,
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The patch that taught libpq about allowing multiple target hosts
> modified connectDBComplete() with the intent of making the
> connect_timeout (if specified) apply per-host, not to the complete
> connection attempt. It did not do a very good
Fabien COELHO writes:
> Patch does not "git apply", but is ok with "patch -p1". Compiles.
Yeah, as far as I can tell, "git apply" is very intolerant.
> The code suggests that timeout is always 2 or more
> if (timeout < 2) timeout = 2;
> but doc says "It is not recommended to use a timeout
If writing an OID were not atomic, the assignment would be really
dangerous. I don't think your proposed update is good.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 02:56:16AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-08-09 18:50:47 +0200, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I don't think that comment, nor the comment that you ended up
> committing:
> +
> + /*
> +* Reset the temporary namespace flag in MyProc. We assume that
>
>From 1e9ba9fa9b172bda1ea54b1f3be1b930973ff45f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michael Paquier
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 19:45:31 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Make autovacuum more aggressive to remove orphaned temp
tables
I was here to complain about this piece:
> @@ -3975,6 +4033,15 @@
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 9:05 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> This is not a fully baked idea, but I'm wondering if a better way to
> do this, instead of having this PartitionIsValid macro to determine if
> the partition should be visible to the current transaction ID, we
> could, when we invalidate a
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 at 17:36, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I run pgbench (read-write and read-only benchmarks) on Amazon
> c5d.18xlarge virtual machine, which has 72 VCPU (approximately same
> power as 36 physical cores). The results are attached
> (lwlock-fair-ro.png and
[Quoting out of order.]
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:16:23AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>
> I'm not, personally, eager to do that work for a requirement which
> somehow hasn't surfaced on any other platform, nor on any previous
> NetBSD release. I think NetBSD is way out in left
The Fatal error does not really say for which host/ip the password fail.
Yup, but that's not the province of this patch to improve. See
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/25918.1533918...@sss.pgh.pa.us
for one that is trying to improve it.
Yep, I gathered that afterwards.
--
Fabien.
Hi!
This subject was already raised multiple times [1], [2], [3]. In
short, our LWLock implementation has pathological behavior when shared
lockers constitute a continuous flood. In this case exclusive lock
waiters are not guaranteed to eventually get the lock. When shared
lock is held, other
Hello Tom,
ISTM that both the hostname and ip should be shown to avoid confusion
about hosts with multiple ips, esp. as ips are given in any order by the
dns.
...
Also for homogeneity, I'd suggest to always add the server line. If the
server introduction is inserted in all cases, including
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We could fix this by teaching configure to absorb -Wl,-R... switches
>> into LDFLAGS from xml2-config's output, and that seems to make things
>> work, but I wonder whether we should or not. This seems like a new height
>>
Fabien COELHO writes:
> ISTM that both the hostname and ip should be shown to avoid confusion
> about hosts with multiple ips, esp. as ips are given in any order by the
> dns.
> ...
> Also for homogeneity, I'd suggest to always add the server line. If the
> server introduction is inserted in
On 2018-08-13 11:50:41 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Aug-11, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > On 2018-08-11 00:46:25 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Below you can find the bt full showing a bunch of nested invalidations.
> > > Looking.
> >
> > Hm. I wonder if the attached fixes the issue
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> I am using worker_spi as a model to run a SQL statement inside a
> background worker. From my browsing of the Postgres library, I believe
> that if I want repeatable read isolation level, the proper way for me to
> attain this is to add
On 2018-Aug-11, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-08-11 00:46:25 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Below you can find the bt full showing a bunch of nested invalidations.
> > Looking.
>
> Hm. I wonder if the attached fixes the issue for you. If it's this I
> don't understand why this doesn't occur
On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> We could fix this by teaching configure to absorb -Wl,-R... switches
> into LDFLAGS from xml2-config's output, and that seems to make things
> work, but I wonder whether we should or not. This seems like a new height
> of unfriendliness to
Hi,
On 2018-08-13 11:46:30 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Aug-11, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> > Hmmm, it's difficult to compare "bt full" output, but my backtraces look
> > somewhat different (and all the backtraces I'm seeing are 100% exactly
> > the same). Attached for comparison.
>
>
On 2018-Aug-11, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Hmmm, it's difficult to compare "bt full" output, but my backtraces look
> somewhat different (and all the backtraces I'm seeing are 100% exactly
> the same). Attached for comparison.
Hmm, looks similar enough to me -- at the bottom you have the executor
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> For my 2c, I'd like something along these lines when it comes to a
> capability but it's just not that simple.
It seems pretty simple to me. We have a bunch of other predefined
roles that allow otherwise-superuser-only operations to be
Fabien COELHO writes:
> In the same vein on a wrong password:
> sh> psql "host=no-such-host,local2.coelho.net,local3.coelho.net"
> Password for user fabien:
> psql: could not translate host name "no-such-host" to address: Name or
> service not known
> could not connect to server:
Fabien COELHO writes:
> About the behavior from psql point of view:
> * if dns works, error messages are only printed if all attempts failed:
> But nothing shows if one succeeds at some point. I understand that libpq
> is doing its job, but I'm wondering whether this is the best behavior.
On 12-08-2018 12:14, Fabien COELHO wrote:
HEllo Marina,
Hello, Fabien!
v10-0003-Pgbench-errors-use-the-Variables-structure-for-c.patch
- a patch for the Variables structure (this is used to reset client
variables during the repeating of transactions after
serialization/deadlock failures).
(2018/08/13 11:57), Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
In the above I used the test whether the relation's reloptkind is
RELOPT_BASEREL or not, but I noticed that I had overlooked the case of a
multi-level partitioned table. So I fixed that and added
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 5:50 AM, 王翔宇 wrote:
> I'm developing a extension for pg. Now I have create a event trigger on
> ddl_command_end, and this function will be called after I enter create
> function statement. In this function I can only get parseTree. In pg source
> code, I found a function
On 08/08/18 19:19, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
So, with this commit, the various SIGQUIT quickdie handlers are in a
better shape. The regular backend's quickdie() handler still calls
ereport(), which is not safe, but it's a step in the right direction.
And we haven't addressed the original
On 2018-08-09 18:50:47 +0200, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 02:29:54AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> + /*
> +* Mark MyProc as owning this namespace which other processes can use to
> +* decide if a temporary namespace is in use or not. We assume that
> +*
On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 06:50:47PM +0200, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Better ideas are of course welcome.
I have gone back-and-forth on this patch for the last couple of days,
reworded the comment blocks to outline the point Andres has been making,
and I have finally been able to push it and
Toshi Harada wrote:
> Hi.
>
> If "data-at-rest-encryption-wip-2018.07.25.patch" is applied to PostgreSQL
> 11-beta3 released last week,
> patch execution will fail as follows.
>
> patching file src/backend/replication/logical/reorderbuffer.c
> Hunk #9 FAILED at 2464.
>
> 1 out of 7
Hi.
If "data-at-rest-encryption-wip-2018.07.25.patch" is applied to PostgreSQL
11-beta3 released last week,
patch execution will fail as follows.
patching file src/backend/replication/logical/reorderbuffer.c
Hunk #9 FAILED at 2464.
1 out of 7 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
46 matches
Mail list logo
