The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:tested, failed
Hi!
I read through the discussion. I agree with the idea here. I
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 10:56:32PM -0800, Mitar wrote:
> I see that some patches were sent to bugs mailing list, not hackers
> [1]. I thought that all patches have to be send to the hackers mailing
> list, as per this wiki page [2]. Moreover, because they were send to
> the bugs mailing list, I am
Attached a v26 with I hope everything ok, but for the documentation that I'm
unsure how to improve.
Attached v27 is the same but with an improved documentation where full
examples, with and without prefix, are provided for both cset & gset.
--
Fabien.diff --git
Hi!
Few more questions.
I see that some patches were sent to bugs mailing list, not hackers
[1]. I thought that all patches have to be send to the hackers mailing
list, as per this wiki page [2]. Moreover, because they were send to
the bugs mailing list, I am unsure how can it be
eb7ed3f3063401496e4aa4bd68fa33f0be31a72f Allow UNIQUE indexes on partitioned
tables
8224de4f42ccf98e08db07b43d52fed72f962ebb Indexes with INCLUDE columns and their
support in B-tree
postgres=# CREATE TABLE t(i int,j int) PARTITION BY LIST (i);
postgres=# CREATE TABLE t1 PARTITION OF t FOR
On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 6:09 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> For discussion, here's an preliminary patch. This is just a first
> skeleton; needs to grow a lot of flesh yet, per my previous proposal.
> As far as the generic CREATE INDEX stuff goes, I think this is complete;
> it's missing the
st 9. 1. 2019 v 1:07 odesílatel Tom Lane napsal:
> Pavel Stehule writes:
> > We cannot to write
> > SELECT least(VARIADIC ARRAY[1,2,3]);
> > Attached patch add this possibility to least, greatest functions.
>
> TBH, I don't find that natural at all. If I were looking for the
> functionality
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 2:11 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Few more comments:
>
> Few comments:
>
> 1.
> + * undorecord.c
> + * encode and decode undo records
> + *
> + * Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2018, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
>
>
On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 5:51 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On 1/6/19 12:40 PM, Surafel Temesgen wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 5:27 PM Tomas Vondra
> > mailto:tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > What formula? All the math remains exactly the same, you just need to
> >
I changed that to the switches -c/--verify (-c for check as -v is taken,
should it be --check as well? I personally like verify better),
-d/--disable and -e/--enable.
I agree that checking the checksum sounds repetitive, but I think that for
consistency --check should be provided.
About
2019年1月9日(水) 13:18 Kyotaro HORIGUCHI :
>
> At Sun, 30 Dec 2018 12:31:22 +0900, Kohei KaiGai wrote
> in
> > 2018年12月30日(日) 4:12 Tom Lane :
> > On the other hands, the later hook must be dedicated to add regular paths,
> > and also provides a chance for extensions to manipulate pre-built
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 05:28:29AM +, Higuchi, Daisuke wrote:
> One solution is that status of Windows Service should be changed to
> "SERVICE_RUNNING" even if timeout is occurred because of long time
> recovery. I attached the patch of this solution.
You should register this patch to the
Hi,
This thread is inactive, but I want to solve this problem.
I think this problem rarely occurs in 10 or later version because of commit
[1]. Because "pg_ctl start -w" wait for only PID file creation. It means that
timeout is not occurred even if crash recovery takes a lot of times.
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 2:25 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> Few minor comments:
>
Thanks for the review.
> 1.
> bench=# SELECT query, calls, total_time, rows, 100.0 * shared_blks_hit /
>nullif(shared_blks_hit + shared_blks_read, 0) AS hit_percent
> FROM pg_stat_statements
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 10:33:00AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Since pg_(total)_relation_size() returns 0 for parent table the
> specifying the parent table to vacuumdb with --min-relation-size
> always does nothing. Maybe we will need to deal with this case when a
> function returning whole
At Sun, 30 Dec 2018 12:31:22 +0900, Kohei KaiGai wrote in
> 2018年12月30日(日) 4:12 Tom Lane :
> On the other hands, the later hook must be dedicated to add regular paths,
> and also provides a chance for extensions to manipulate pre-built path-list
> including Gather-path.
> As long as I know,
I used the updated instructions from pg_ctl.diff to install from source.
Worked well for me, new version is more consistent.
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 6:00 AM Haribabu Kommi wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:53 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> Can you add a few examples in the documentation? See if it is
>> possible to extend the existing documentation section (F.29.4),
>> otherwise, add a new section.
>
>
> Apologies for
At Tue, 08 Jan 2019 16:26:38 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
<20190108.162638.106314087.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> Hello.
>
> At Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:50:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
> <28533.1545411...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> > seem that that's just moving the problem
Hi,
I ran the performance tests for no prepared query and for prepared query with
plan_cache_mode='auto' and plan_cache_mode='force_custom_plan'. I also changed
number of partitions as 256 or 4096. I ran the tests on master and v9-patched.
[settings]
plan_cache_mode = 'auto' or
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 01:03:25PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I changed that to the switches -c/--verify (-c for check as -v is taken,
> should it be --check as well? I personally like verify better),
> -d/--disable and -e/--enable.
Indeed we could use --check, pg_checksums --check looks
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:06 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 06:46:11PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> > This was done in order to maintain the current behavior that
> > appendQualifiedRelation() gives us. I found that skipping the
> > search_path handling here forced us
From: Adrien NAYRAT [mailto:adrien.nay...@anayrat.info]
> FIY, wait events have been added in PoWA by using pg_wait_sampling
> extension :
> https://rjuju.github.io/postgresql/2018/07/09/wait-events-support-for-
> powa.html
>
> pg_wait_sampling sample the wait events in shared memory and PoWA
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 1:12 AM Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 3:37 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 6:54 PM Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 9:01 AM Masahiko Sawada
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Logical replication
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 10:14:10AM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> Also, how is the level at which I should review it
>> determined?
>
> Patches as complex as the one you submitted?
The usual expectation is to review one patch of equal difficulty for
each patch submitted. The way to measure a
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:56 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 4:36 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > We already have disable_page_skipping option, not (page_skipping
> > false). So ISMT disable_index_cleanup would be more natural.
>
> Sure.
>
> > Also,
> > since what to do with this
On 1/8/19 4:48 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 19:34, Andrew Dunstan
> wrote:
>> Here's a patch that I think cures the problem.
>>
> Hmm, that doesn't quite work because the table might not actually be
> rewritten as a result of the type change. For example:
>
> DROP TABLE IF
Fujita-san,
(sorry about the repeated email, but my previous attempt failed due to
trying to send to the -hackers and -performance lists at the same time, so
trying again after removing -performance)
On 2019/01/08 20:07, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/12/07 20:14), Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> On Fri,
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 19:30, Amit Langote wrote:
> Rebased due to changed copyright year in prepunion.c. Also realized that
> the new files added by patch 0004 still had 2018 in them.
I've made a pass over 0001. There's probably enough for you to look at
while I look at 0002 and the others.
Pavel Stehule writes:
> We cannot to write
> SELECT least(VARIADIC ARRAY[1,2,3]);
> Attached patch add this possibility to least, greatest functions.
TBH, I don't find that natural at all. If I were looking for the
functionality "smallest element of an array", I think I'd expect to find
that
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 05:53:25PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> John Naylor writes:
> > -As for the graph algorithm, I'd have to play with it to understand
> > how it works.
>
> I improved the comment about how come the hash table entry assignment
> works. One thing I'm not clear about myself is
>
John Naylor writes:
> -As for the graph algorithm, I'd have to play with it to understand
> how it works.
I improved the comment about how come the hash table entry assignment
works. One thing I'm not clear about myself is
# A cycle-free graph is either empty or has some vertex of
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 09:29:49AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-01-08 13:02:00 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> The specific-heap tests could be included as an extra module in
>> src/test/modules easily, so removing from the main tests what is not
>> completely transparent may make sense.
John Naylor writes:
> Just a couple comments about the module:
> -If you qualify the function's module name as you did
> (PerfectHash::generate_hash_function), you don't have to export the
> function into the callers namespace, so you can skip the @EXPORT_OK
> setting. Most of our modules don't
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 7:49 AM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 25/12/2018 00:56, Corey Huinker wrote:
> > The regression diff (attached) seems to imply that the triggers simply
> > are not firing, though.
>
> The reason for this was explained by Dean. If you take out the check
> that he
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 3:04 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > I'll take a crack at separating into a module. I'll wait a bit in
> > case there are any stylistic suggestions on the patch as it stands.
>
> I had a go at that myself. I'm sure there's plenty to criticize in
> the result, but at least it
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2019-01-08 13:41:16 -0500, John Naylor wrote:
>> Do you mean the fmgr table?
> Not the entire fmgr table, but just the builtin oid index, generated by
> the following section:
> ...
> The generated fmgr_builtin_oid_index is pretty sparse, and a more dense
> hashtable
I am new to the autovacuum. After reading its code, I am still confusing
what is the autovac_balance_cost() and how the cost logic works to make the
autovacuum workers consume the I/O equially. Can anyone share some light on
it?
Thanks
On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 10:50 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 3:49 AM John Naylor wrote:
> > > I also tried to insert more
> > > records till 8 pages and same regression is observed! So I guess even
> > > HEAP_FSM_CREATION_THRESHOLD = 4 is not perfect!
> >
> > That's curious,
John Naylor writes:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:06 PM Andrew Dunstan
> wrote:
>> If he doesn't I will.
> I'll take a crack at separating into a module. I'll wait a bit in
> case there are any stylistic suggestions on the patch as it stands.
I had a go at that myself. I'm sure there's plenty
On 1/7/19, 1:12 AM, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
> I have been looking at the patch set, and 0001 can actually happen
> only once 0005 is applied because this modifies the query doing on
> HEAD a full scan of pg_class which would include at least catalog
> tables so it can never be empty. For this
>> > * Solution #2 - Quick and dirty and invisible. Tom suggested a hack that
>> > achieves the aims of #1 but without adding syntax to CREATE FUNCTION: have
>> > the inlining logic look at the cost of the wrapper and the cost of
>> > parameters, and if the cost of the wrapper "greatly
Hi,
On 1/7/19 1:07 PM, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
While I'm still looking at 0004 - should we have a test that updates one
of the constraints of fk to another partition in pk ?
In addition:
* Document pre_drop_class_check()
* I think index_get_partition() would be more visible in partition.c
*
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 1:06 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
> All the entries are marked with '2018' to indicate they were pulled from
> last year. If the project from last year is still relevant, please
> update it to be '2019' and make sure to update all of the information
> (in particular, make sure
Hi,
On 2019-01-08 11:30:56 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 08/01/2019 00:56, Andres Freund wrote:
> > A patch at [2] adds display of a table's access method to \d+ - but that
> > means that running the tests with a different default table access
> > method (e.g. using PGOPTIONS='-c
Hi,
On 2019-01-08 13:02:00 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 06:31:52PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Huh? It's absolutely *trivial* from a buildsystem POV to run the tests
> > again with a different default AM. That's precisely why I'm talking
> > about this. Just setting
On 1/7/19 7:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-01-07 19:37:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund writes:
>>> Hm, shouldn't we extract the perfect hash generation into a perl module
>>> or such? It seems that there's plenty other possible uses for it.
>> Such as?
> Builtin
But then you have to make sure the control flag gets cleared in any
case pg_verify_checksums crashes somehow or gets SIGKILL'ed ...
The usual approach is a restart with some --force option?
Setting the checksum flag is done after having finished all blocks, so
there is no problem.
There
Am Dienstag, den 08.01.2019, 16:17 +0100 schrieb Fabien COELHO:
> > > Adding a new state to ControlFileData which would prevent it from
> > > starting?
> >
> > But then you have to make sure the control flag gets cleared in any
> > case pg_verify_checksums crashes somehow or gets SIGKILL'ed ...
>
Richard Guo writes:
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 10:32 PM Peter Eisentraut <
> peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> I think code readability and maintainability would be improved by having
>> fewer special cases and fast paths. In this particular case, I'd even
>> remove the existing fast
Setting the checksum flag is done after having finished all blocks, so
there is no problem. But we need to set this new flag before and reset
it afterwards, so in between strange things can happen (as the various
calls to exit() within error handling illustrates).
It seems writing a note like
Adding a new state to ControlFileData which would prevent it from
starting?
But then you have to make sure the control flag gets cleared in any
case pg_verify_checksums crashes somehow or gets SIGKILL'ed ...
The usual approach is a restart with some --force option?
Setting the checksum
Greetings,
* Padam Chopra (padamchopra1...@gmail.com) wrote:
> I want to join GCI as a mentor for the year 2019, please guide me about the
> procedure,
> thanks in anticipation.
Thanks for your interest but we aren't likely to even start thinking
about that until we're close to when GCI 2019
Am Dienstag, den 08.01.2019, 15:39 +0100 schrieb Bernd Helmle:
> Am Dienstag, den 08.01.2019, 15:09 +0100 schrieb Fabien COELHO:
> > > The question is how to reliably do this in an acceptable way? Just
> > > faking a postmaster.pid sounds pretty hackish to me, do you have
> > > any
> > >
Am Dienstag, den 08.01.2019, 15:09 +0100 schrieb Fabien COELHO:
> > The question is how to reliably do this in an acceptable way? Just
> > faking a postmaster.pid sounds pretty hackish to me, do you have
> > any
> > suggestions here?
>
> Adding a new state to ControlFileData which would prevent
=?UTF-8?Q?Mikael_Kjellstr=c3=b6m?= writes:
> On 2019-01-08 07:14, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Raising the annoyance factor considerably, AFAICT the only way to
>> increase these settings is to build your own custom kernel.
> You don't need to build your custom kernel to change those settings.
> Just add:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 00:45, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> FWIW the main unsolved issue (at least on the MCV part) is how it
> decides which items to keep in the list.
>
> As explained in [1], in the multivariate case we can't simply look at
> the group frequency and compare it to the average frequency
One difference between pg_rewind and pg_checksums is that the latter
potentially runs for a longer time (or rather a non-trivial amount of
time, compared to pg_rewind), so the margin of error of another DBA
saying "oh, that DB is down, let me start it again" might be much
higher.
The
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 01:20, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> By the way, is it ok to negotiate review exchange?
I think it happens fairly often. There's no need for the list to know
anything about it when it does.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development,
On 1/3/19 12:53 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:35:26AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> This might be useful for some people. Here is an emacs configuration
>> for perl-mode that is compatible with the new perltidy settings. Note
>> that the default perl-mode settings
Hi everyone!
> 8 янв. 2019 г., в 14:14, Fabien COELHO написал(а):
>
> The process is that *you* choose the patches to review and register as such
> for the patch on the CF app.
By the way, is it ok to negotiate review exchange?
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:38 PM David Rowley
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 23:56, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've checked for Clang 6, it turns out that indeed it generates popcnt
> > without
> > any macro, but only in one place for bloom_prop_bits_set. After
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 26.12.2018, 19:43 +0100 schrieb Fabien COELHO:
> > It adds an (now mandatory) --action parameter that takes either verify,
> > enable or disable as argument.
>
> I'd rather have explicit switches for verify, enable & disable, and verify
> would be the default if none is
Respected Concern,
I want to join GCI as a mentor for the year 2019, please guide me about the
procedure,
thanks in anticipation.
--
Regards
Padam Chopra
Google Grand Prize Winner
Microsoft Imagine Cup India winner
TedX Event Organizer
Contact:
Email:padamchopra1337(at)gmail(dot)com
More
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 27.12.2018, 12:26 +0100 schrieb Fabien COELHO:
> > > For enable/disable, while the command is running, it should mark the
> > > cluster as opened to prevent an unwanted database start. I do not see
> > > where this is done.
> > >
> > > You have pretty much the same class
On 08/01/2019 00:56, Andres Freund wrote:
> A patch at [2] adds display of a table's access method to \d+ - but that
> means that running the tests with a different default table access
> method (e.g. using PGOPTIONS='-c default_table_access_method=...)
> there'll be a significant number of test
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 10:32 PM Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 12/12/2018 08:32, Richard Guo wrote:
> > This small revise is not expected to bring performance improvements, but
> > can improve the readability of the code that for empty relids, the qual
> > is
Hello Mitar,
I am new to this community. I have submitted few patches to this
commitfest and I have read that it is expected that I also review some
other patches. But I am not sure about the process here. Should I wait
for some other patches to be assigned to me to review? Or is there
some
Hi Thomas,
On Friday, December 28, 2018 6:43 AM Thomas Munro
wrote:
> [...]if you have ideas about the validity of the assumptions, the reason it
> breaks initdb, or any other aspect of this approach (or alternatives), please
> don't let me stop you, and of course please feel free to submit
Hi!
I am new to this community. I have submitted few patches to this
commitfest and I have read that it is expected that I also review some
other patches. But I am not sure about the process here. Should I wait
for some other patches to be assigned to me to review? Or is there
some other process?
On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 11:29 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 4:37 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, the new changes look mostly okay to me, but I have few comments:
> > 1.
> > + /*
> > + * WAL log, for log switch. This is required to identify the log switch
> > + * during
Respected Concern,
I want to join GCI as a mentor for the year 2019, please guide me about the
procedure,
thanks in anticipation.
--
Regards
Padam Chopra
Google Grand Prize Winner
Microsoft Imagine Cup India winner
TedX Event Organizer
Contact:
Email:padamchopra1...@gmail.com
More details
Sigh.. In the frrst place, the loop should not stop until the maximum
exponent.
sorry, but I don't have a time now..
2019年1月8日(火) 16:43 Kyotaro HORIGUCHI :
> Mmm.
>
> At Tue, 08 Jan 2019 16:26:38 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro
> HORIGUCHI wrote in <
>
Re: Andres Freund 2019-01-08 <20190108011837.n4mx7dadvojv2...@alap3.anarazel.de>
> > Here's another revision that doesn't add an extra CXXOPT variable but
> > just extends CXXFLAGS whenever COPT or PROFILE are set, which seems
> > more usable.
>
> Why does that seem more usable? How's that
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 3:02 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 06:31:52PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Huh? It's absolutely *trivial* from a buildsystem POV to run the tests
> > again with a different default AM. That's precisely why I'm talking
> > about this. Just setting
75 matches
Mail list logo
