Hi Magnus,
On Fri, 8 Sept 2023 at 23:43, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> +1. And to make that happen, the appropriate thing is to identify
> *why* they are using superuser today, and focus efforts on finding
> ways for them to do that without being superuser.
>
As I am explaining in the other post (co
Hello hackers,
Currently obtaining the base type of a domain involves a somewhat long
recursive query. Consider:
```
create domain mytext as text;
create domain mytext_child_1 as mytext;
create domain mytext_child_2 as mytext_child_1;
```
To get `mytext_child_2` base type we can do:
```
WITH RE
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 6:36 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> > 2. Why get_old_cluster_logical_slot_infos() need to use
> > pg_malloc_array whereas for similar stuff get_rel_infos() use
> > pg_malloc()?
>
> They did a same thing. I used pg_malloc_array() macro to keep the code
> within 80 col
> This looks mostly fine to me modulo "sort or hash". I do see many
> instances of "and/or" in the docs. Maybe that would work better.
"sort or hash operations at the same time" is clear explanation IMO.
This latest version of the patch looks good to me.
Regards,
Sami
On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 10:22 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 11:32 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, September 4, 2023 10:42 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 9:38 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
This is a very useful feature. I applied the patch to the master branch,
and both make check and make check-world passed without any issues.
Just one comment here, based on the example below,
host db jim 127.0.0.1/32 md5 # #foo#
... it returns the following pg_hba_file_rules records:
pos
On 7/9/23 21:51, Gabriele Bartolini wrote:
Hi everyone,
I would like to propose a patch that allows administrators to disable
`ALTER SYSTEM` via either a runt-time option to pass to the Postgres
server process at startup (e.g. `--disable-alter-system=true`, false
by default) or a new GUC (o
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 5:31 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > I don't understand Tom's resistance to this request.
>
> It's false security. If you think you are going to prevent a superuser
> from messing with the system's configuration, you are going to need a
> lot more restric
On 9/8/23 21:27, Jacob Champion wrote:
On 9/7/23 20:54, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
But it's easy
to come up with a pattern where that's the wrong order, like
PATTERN ( A+ (B|A)+ )
Now "aaa" will be considered before "aab", which isn't correct.
Can you explain a little bit more? I think 'aaa'
Hi Tom and Alvaro,
On Fri, 8 Sept 2023 at 17:31, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > I don't understand Tom's resistance to this request.
>
> It's false security. If you think you are going to prevent a superuser
> from messing with the system's configuration, you are going to need a
On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 15:24 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Looking closer, there is much more inconsistency in this file
> depending on the routine called. How about something like the v2
> attached instead to provide more context in the error message about
> the function called? Let's say, when
On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 7:00 AM Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> It takes less than 10 minutes on average for me. I checked
> REL_12_STABLE, REL_13_STABLE, and REL_14_STABLE (with HAVE_KQUEUE undefined
> forcefully) — they all are affected.
> I could not reproduce the lockup on my Ubuntu box (with HAVE_SY
On 9/7/23 20:54, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> DEFINE
>> A AS PREV(CLASSIFIER()) IS DISTINCT FROM 'A',
>> ...
>
> But:
>
> UP AS price > PREV(price)
>
> also depends on previous row, no?
PREV(CLASSIFIER()) depends not on the value of the previous row but the
state of the match so far.
Hi
Another thing that should be described there is that this falls
> outside of the transaction flow, i.e. it's changes are not reverted on
> ROLLBACK. But that leaves an important consideration: What happens
> when an error occurs on the server during handling of this message
> (e.g. the GUC does
út 5. 9. 2023 v 13:29 odesílatel Jelte Fennema napsal:
> On Tue, 5 Sept 2023 at 05:50, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
>
> > I prefer to introduce a new function - it is ten lines of code. The form
> is not important - it can be a full number or minor number. It doesn't
> matter I think. But my opinion i
Hello,
03.09.2023 00:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
I'll try to test this guess on the target machine...
I got access to dikkop thanks to Tomas Vondra, and started reproducing the
issue. It was rather difficult to catch the lockup as Tomas and Tom
noticed before. I tried to use stress-ng to affe
On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 10:52:10AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 09:21:07PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 07, 2023 at 07:13:44PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 02:54:13PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> >> IMO the phrase "open a port"
On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 10:56:15AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> If we're going to actually mark it deprecated then it should be, at
> least, a yearly discussion about removing it. I'm generally more in
> favor of either just keeping it, or just removing it, though. We've had
> very little succes
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 2:35 AM jian he wrote:
>
> hi.
> the following script makes the server crash (Segmentation fault).
> [snip]
>
> ALTER TABLE temporal_fk_rng2rng
> ADD CONSTRAINT temporal_fk_rng2rng_fk
> FOREIGN KEY (parent_id, PERIOD valid_at)
> REFERENCES temporal_rng
> on update se
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> I don't understand Tom's resistance to this request.
It's false security. If you think you are going to prevent a superuser
from messing with the system's configuration, you are going to need a
lot more restrictions than this, and we'll be forever getting security
report
On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 6:23 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> I mostly wanted to remove the NULL checks because I found them
> distracting (so, a stylistic complaint). However, upon further
> reflection, I actually think it is better if heap_page_prune_opt()
> passes NULL. heap_page_prune() has no erro
Greetings,
* Nathan Bossart (nathandboss...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 01:31:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Nathan Bossart writes:
> >> I wonder if it'd be possible to just remove pg_get_serial_sequence().
> >
> > A quick search at http://codesearch.debian.net/ finds uses of it
On 2023-Sep-08, Gabriele Bartolini wrote:
> That is the point I highlighted in the initial post in the thread. We could
> make it readonly, but the returned error is misleading and definitely poor
> UX:
>
> ```
> postgres=# ALTER SYSTEM SET wal_level TO minimal;
> ERROR: could not open file "pos
On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 09:21:07PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2023 at 07:13:44PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 02:54:13PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> >> IMO the phrase "open a port" is kind of nonstandard. I think we should say
> >> something along
Dear hackers,
I recently found a weird behaviour involving FDW (postgres_fdw) and
planning.
Here’s a simplified use-case:
Given a remote table (say on server2) with the following definition:
CREATE TABLE t1(
ts timestamp without time zone,
x bigint,
x2 text
);
--Then populate t1 table:IN
Hi Isaac,
On Fri, 8 Sept 2023 at 16:11, Isaac Morland wrote:
> Alternate idea, not sure how good this is: Use existing OS security
> features (regular permissions, or more modern features such as the
> immutable attribute) to mark the postgresql.auto.conf file as not being
> writeable. Then any
On Fri, 8 Sept 2023 at 10:03, Gabriele Bartolini <
gabriele.bartol...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> ALTER SYSTEM is already heavily restricted.
>
>
> Could you please help me better understand what you mean here?
>
>
>> I don't think we need random kluges added to the permissions system.
>
>
> If yo
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 03:34:42PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 5 Sep 2023, at 16:37, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > I've gone over this version of the patch and I think it's ready to go in.
> > I'm
> > marking this Ready for Committer and will go ahead with it shortly barring
> > a
> On 5 Sep 2023, at 16:37, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> I've gone over this version of the patch and I think it's ready to go in. I'm
> marking this Ready for Committer and will go ahead with it shortly barring any
> objections.
Pushed, after another round of review with some minor fixes.
--
Dan
Dear Amit,
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 2:12 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > 2.
> >
> > + if (nslots_on_new)
> > + {
> > + if (nslots_on_new == 1)
> > + pg_fatal("New cluster must not have logical
> replication slots but found a slot.");
> > +
Dear Amit,
Thank you for reviewing!
> Few comments:
> =
> 1.
>
> + All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e., there are no slots
> + whose
> +linkend="view-pg-replication-slots">pg_replication_slots.
> wal_status
> + is lost.
> +
>
> Shall we
Dear Hou,
Thank you for reviewing! PSA new version! PSA new version.
> Here are some comments:
>
> 1.
>
> bool reap_child(bool wait_for_child);
> +
> +XLogRecPtr strtoLSN(const char *str, bool *have_error);
>
> This function has be removed.
Removed.
> 2.
>
> + if (nslots_on_n
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 3:28 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Agreed that we'd certainly want to make sure it's all correct and to do
> > performance testing but in terms of how many buffers... isn't much of
> > the point of this that we have d
2023年9月8日(金) 19:07 Vik Fearing :
>
> On 9/8/23 09:42, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I got a trouble report here:
> > https://github.com/heterodb/pg-strom/issues/636
> >
> > It says that PG-Strom raised an error when the HAVING clause used
> > non-grouping-keys,
> > even though the vanilla
Hi Tom,
On Thu, 7 Sept 2023 at 22:27, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gabriele Bartolini writes:
> > I would like to propose a patch that allows administrators to disable
> > `ALTER SYSTEM` via either a runt-time option to pass to the Postgres
> server
> > process at startup (e.g. `--disable-alter-system=tru
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 2:12 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> 2.
>
> + if (nslots_on_new)
> + {
> + if (nslots_on_new == 1)
> + pg_fatal("New cluster must not have logical
> replication slots but found a slot.");
> + else
> +
Dear Shveta,
I resumed to check the thread. Here are my high-level comments.
Sorry if you have been already discussed.
01. General
I think the documentation can be added, not only GUCs. How about adding examples
for combinations of physical and logical replications? You can say that both of
phy
On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 5:54 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Thank you for reviewing! PSA new version.
>
Few comments:
=
1.
+ All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e., there are no slots
+ whose
+ pg_replication_slots.wal_status
+ is lost.
+
On 9/8/23 09:42, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
Hello,
I got a trouble report here:
https://github.com/heterodb/pg-strom/issues/636
It says that PG-Strom raised an error when the HAVING clause used
non-grouping-keys,
even though the vanilla PostgreSQL successfully processed the query.
SELECT MAX(c0) FROM
Another similar issue was reported on the PgBouncer prepared statement PR[1].
It's related to an issue that was already reported on the
mailinglist[2]. It turns out that invalidation of the argument types
is also important in some cases. The newly added 3rd patch in this
series addresses that issu
On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 3:16 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> Hi Tom, Richard,
>
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 8:17 AM Richard Guo wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for pushing it!
>
> With this fix, I saw a noticeable increase in the memory consumption
> of planner. I was running experiments mentioned in [1] The re
> On 7 Sep 2023, at 13:24, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
>> On 7 Sep 2023, at 13:09, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>
>> With f47ed79cc8, the test suite doesn't run 'wal_consistency_checking'
>> as default because it is resource intensive; but regress docs doesn't
>> state resource intensiveness as a re
hi.
the following script makes the server crash (Segmentation fault).
create schema test;
set search_path to test;
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS temporal_rng;
CREATE TABLE temporal_rng (id int4range, valid_at daterange);
ALTER TABLE temporal_rng
ADD CONSTRAINT temporal_rng_pk
PRIMARY KEY (id, valid_at WIT
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 8:24 PM Kuroda, Hayato/黒田 隼人
wrote:
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> Thank you for reviewing! PSA new version.
Thanks for updating the patches !
Here are some comments:
1.
bool reap_child(bool wait_for_child);
+
+XLogRecPtr strtoLSN(const char *str, bool *ha
> On 7 Sep 2023, at 18:06, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> if the changes are only in the docs, don't run
> all tasks except building the docs task; this could help to save more
> CI times.
A related idea for docs in order to save CI time: if the changes are only in
internal docs, ie README files, th
Dear Hoiguchi-san,
Thank you for making the patch!
> It doesn't seem to work as expected. We still lose the relationship
> between the PID file and the launched postmaster.
Yes, I did not expect that the relationship can be kept.
Conceptually +1 for your approach.
> > Ditching cmd.exe seems lik
On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 1:25 PM Himanshu Upadhyaya
wrote:
>
> Attached is v2 of the patch, rebased against the latest HEAD.
I have done some initial reviews, and here are my comments. More
detailed review later. Meanwhile, you can work on these comments and
fix all the cosmetics especially 80 ch
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 10:10 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 09:14:59AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 9:00 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> >>> I
> >>> mean that doing the latter is benefitial for the sake of any patch
> >>> committed and
> >>> a
Hello,
I got a trouble report here:
https://github.com/heterodb/pg-strom/issues/636
It says that PG-Strom raised an error when the HAVING clause used
non-grouping-keys,
even though the vanilla PostgreSQL successfully processed the query.
SELECT MAX(c0) FROM t0 GROUP BY t0.c1 HAVING t0.c0
On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 8:17 AM Richard Guo wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 1:44 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Richard Guo writes:
>> > If we go with the "tablesample scans can't be reparameterized" approach
>> > in the back branches, I'm a little concerned that what if we find more
>> > cases i
Hi,
On 2023-09-07 22:29:04 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 9:45 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > I.e. setting an, otherwise unmodified, page all-visible won't trigger an FPI
> > if checksums are disabled, but will FPI with checksums enabled. I think
> > that's
> > a substantial
I committed this for 17. It would be good to come up with something
fundamentally better than this, to get rid of that 64 event limit
nonsense, but I don't see it happening in the 17 cycle, and prefer the
semantics with this commit in the meantime.
52 matches
Mail list logo
