čt 11. 10. 2018 v 22:48 odesílatel Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com>
napsal:
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 at 14:26, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> >
> > I am playing with this feature little bit
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
> > I have one idea - can be possible to use integer subscript for record
> fields? It
Hi,
On 2018-10-07 12:59:18 +0100, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> > "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
>
> Tom> Now, "shortest value that converts back exactly" is technically
> Tom> cool, but I am not sure that it solves any real-world problem that
> Tom> we have.
>
> Well, it seems to me that it is
On 10/11/2018 05:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund writes:
On 2018-10-11 16:57:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Another idea would be to put table drops into the back branch regression
tests, so that their ending states don't include any such tables. That
would cripple pg_dump testing of
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 07:41:18PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> We only remove temp dirs on startup, and I'm pretty sure there at least
> not too long ago were a few error cases where we can leak temp files in
> individual sessions. And there's talk about allowing
> pg_verify_checksums when
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 08:04:11PM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> Proposed patch is attached.
The problem I have with this patch doing the duplication removal and
qsort work in LogCurrentRunningXacts is that it would still lock
ProcArrayLock until the WAL record has been written with
Hi,
On 2018-10-12 11:07:58 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 06:53:19PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hm. Maybe I'm confused, but how is it correct to use a blacklisting
> > approach here? It's far from absurd to have files inside a tablespacs
> > when using
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 06:53:19PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-10-12 10:39:18 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I have been able to reproduce the problem, and that's a bug within
>> pg_verify_checksums as it fails to consider that config_exec_params is
>> not a file it should scan when
Hi,
On 2018-10-12 10:39:18 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 06:04:11PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > culicidae tests EXEC_BACKEND, so there's an explanation as to why it
> > sometimes behaves differently. But here I don't immediately see how
> > that'd matter. Probably
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 06:04:11PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> culicidae tests EXEC_BACKEND, so there's an explanation as to why it
> sometimes behaves differently. But here I don't immediately see how
> that'd matter. Probably still worth verifying that it's not somehow
> caused by that.
Hi,
On 2018-10-12 09:56:14 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 12:17:57AM +, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Add TAP tests for pg_verify_checksums
> >
> > All options available in the utility get coverage:
> > - Tests with disabled page checksums.
> > - Tests with enabled test
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 12:17:57AM +, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Add TAP tests for pg_verify_checksums
>
> All options available in the utility get coverage:
> - Tests with disabled page checksums.
> - Tests with enabled test checksums.
> - Emulation of corruption and broken checksums with a
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 09:49:27PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Looking at src/test/recovery/t/009_twophase.pl, this is testing 2PC,
> and the missing row is from:
>
> $cur_master->psql(
> 'postgres', "
> BEGIN;
> INSERT INTO t_009_tbl VALUES (13, 'issued to ${cur_master_name}');
>
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 10:50:02AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> The resulting patch is attached. Does that look good?
And committed. Thanks all for taking the time to review.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 07:12:22AM +0200, Chris Travers wrote:
> If we have a committer who loudly and proudly goes to neo-nazi rallies or
> pickup artist / pro-rape meetups, then actually yes, I have a problem with
> that. That impacts my ability to work in the community, impacts
Another version. I realized that attaching a partitioned partition had
further trouble, because the recursion at each step would consider all
FKs instead of only the FKs that had been cloned. So I had to split out
the recursive step of the cloning. Now that works fine.
In order to make this
Hi,
On 2018-10-11 17:11:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2018-10-11 16:57:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Another idea would be to put table drops into the back branch regression
> >> tests, so that their ending states don't include any such tables. That
> >> would
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2018-10-11 16:57:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Another idea would be to put table drops into the back branch regression
>> tests, so that their ending states don't include any such tables. That
>> would cripple pg_dump testing of these types in the back branches, but
>>
Hi,
On 2018-10-11 16:57:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I've done that now, together with two commits for removal of timetravel
> > and abstime, reltime, tinterval.
>
> Unsurprisingly-in-retrospect, buildfarm member crake is now bitching
> that cross-version pg_upgrade
Andres Freund writes:
> I've done that now, together with two commits for removal of timetravel
> and abstime, reltime, tinterval.
Unsurprisingly-in-retrospect, buildfarm member crake is now bitching
that cross-version pg_upgrade fails, since it's trying to test importing
back-branch regression
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 at 14:26, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> I am playing with this feature little bit
Thanks a lot!
> I have one idea - can be possible to use integer subscript for record fields?
> It can helps with iteration over record.
>
> example:
>
> select
David Rowley writes:
> I guess if we ever did something to break that then we'd need to not
> do anything when there are volatile functions present.
Yeah, nothing I'm doing here changes the rule that we don't flatten
sub-selects containing volatiles in their tlist.
> If people are
> writing
Re: Tom Lane 2018-10-11 <28384.1539266...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Christoph Berg writes:
> > The 11rc1 build was failing on Debian mips:
> > ...
> > The diff is that "14|issued to london" was expected, but "|" was
> > received.
> > The build succeeded when I retried it manually on a different box.
>
>
On 12 October 2018 at 05:52, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Oct-11, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Hm, I'm not seeing any regression test result changes there. However,
>> if you're just executing queries and not EXPLAIN'ing them, it's possible
>> something unwanted is happening under the hood.
>
> Hmm,
Hi,
On 2018-10-09 17:39:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2018-10-09 17:27:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I complained about this already on the other thread, I think, but:
> >> I do not think we should remove timeofday(). It's unrelated to these
> >> datatypes and it
Hi,
On 2018-10-01 22:21:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes:
> > At Tue, 25 Sep 2018 16:45:09 -0700, Andres Freund
> > wrote in <20180925234509.3hrrf6tmvy5tf...@alap3.anarazel.de>
> >> On 2018-09-04 18:35:34 +0530, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> >>> Pack the boolean members in
Hi,
This is more a note for the future, than something I'm planning to
pursue right now. Turns out our x86 full memory barrier could be sped
up noticably on larger systems with a trivial change.
Just changing
__asm__ __volatile__ ("lock; addl $0,0(%%rsp)" : : : "memory", "cc")
into something
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2018-Oct-11, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm, I'm not seeing any regression test result changes there. However,
>> if you're just executing queries and not EXPLAIN'ing them, it's possible
>> something unwanted is happening under the hood.
> Hmm, no, the explains are there.
On 11.10.2018 12:06, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:22:45AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
I am not sure if the performance argument is actually this much
sensible, it could be as you say, but another thing that we could argue
about is that the presence of duplicate entries
On 2018-Oct-11, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm, I'm not seeing any regression test result changes there. However,
> if you're just executing queries and not EXPLAIN'ing them, it's possible
> something unwanted is happening under the hood.
Hmm, no, the explains are there. Here's one example -- maybe your
On 2018-Oct-11, Tom Lane wrote:
> I have been fooling around with a patch to allow pull-up of sub-selects
> that lack any FROM, along the lines discussed in
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/15944.1521127...@sss.pgh.pa.us
> I find that it is smart enough to reduce that EXISTS to a plain
>
The last test case in select_parallel.sql, added in commit dc1057fc,
currently generates a plan like this:
CREATE VIEW tenk1_vw_sec WITH (security_barrier) AS SELECT * FROM tenk1;
EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF)
SELECT 1 FROM tenk1_vw_sec WHERE EXISTS (SELECT 1 WHERE unique1 = 0);
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 05:12:48AM -0400, Corey Huinker wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 5:04 AM Surafel Temesgen
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 12:00 PM Christoph Moench-Tegeder <
> > c...@burggraben.net> wrote:
> >
> >> You can:
> >> COPY ( query ) TO 'filename';
> >>
> > it
On 10/10/2018 21:50, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I see. Peter is proposing to have a fourth mode, essentially
>> --transfer-mode=clone-or-copy.
>
> Uh, if you use --link, and the two data directories are on different
> file systems, it fails. No one has ever asked for link-or-copy, so why
> are we
Christoph Berg writes:
> The 11rc1 build was failing on Debian mips:
> ...
> The diff is that "14|issued to london" was expected, but "|" was
> received.
> The build succeeded when I retried it manually on a different box.
Was it repeatable on the original box?
My gut feeling is that this is
Recently I have to estimate performance of performing select with
multiple search conditions with bad selectivity.
Definitely it is some kind of OLAP query and it will be interesting for
me to understand the role of different PostgreSQL optimization options.
So the table is the following:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 5:04 AM Surafel Temesgen
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 12:00 PM Christoph Moench-Tegeder <
> c...@burggraben.net> wrote:
>
>> You can:
>> COPY ( query ) TO 'filename';
>>
> it is for COPY FROM
>
> regards
> Surafel
>
It didn't get far, but you may want to take a
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:22:45AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I am not sure if the performance argument is actually this much
> sensible, it could be as you say, but another thing that we could argue
> about is that the presence of duplicate entries in
> GetRunningTransactionData() can be
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 12:00 PM Christoph Moench-Tegeder <
c...@burggraben.net> wrote:
> You can:
> COPY ( query ) TO 'filename';
>
it is for COPY FROM
regards
Surafel
## Surafel Temesgen (surafel3...@gmail.com):
> Currently we can not moves data from a file to a table based on some
> condition on a certain column
You can:
COPY ( query ) TO 'filename';
There's even an example in the documentation:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/sql-copy.html
"To
Hello,
Currently we can not moves data from a file to a table based on some
condition on a certain column but I think there are many use case for it
that worth supporting. Attache is a patch for escaping a row that does not
satisfy WHEN condition from inserting into a table and its work on the
At Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:42:35 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
<20181011.134235.218062184.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> Hello.
>
> At Fri, 27 Jul 2018 15:26:24 -0400, Andrew Dunstan
> wrote in
>
> >
> >
> > On 07/18/2018 10:58 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >
The 11rc1 build was failing on Debian mips:
cd /<>/build/../src/test/recovery &&
TESTDIR='/<>/build/src/test/recovery'
PATH="/<>/build/tmp_install/usr/lib/postgresql/11/bin:$PATH"
LD_LIBRARY_PATH="/<>/build/tmp_install/usr/lib/mips-linux-gnu"
PGPORT='65432'
Hello,
I am Aviral Verma, a senior computer science student at IIT Roorkee. I have
been using PostgreSQL a lot now and the GCI mentorship seems like a good way
to give back. I am quite familiar with the technologies that PostgreSQL uses
and also pretty efficient with oss contribution workflow and
43 matches
Mail list logo
