Re: Query is over 2x slower with jit=on

> On Aug 22, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Hi, > > On 2018-04-18 18:37:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >>> Not convinced that that is true - the issue is more likely that JIT work in >>> workers is counted as execute time...

Re: Pre-v11 appearances of the word "procedure" in v11 docs

> On Aug 22, 2018, at 9:15 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > On 18/08/2018 19:37, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >> I reviewed the patches, here are my comments. > > Committed all three with some adjustments. Thanks. Awesome, thanks! I removed the open item. Jonathan s

Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message

> On Aug 18, 2018, at 11:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2018-Aug-18, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > >> >>> On Aug 18, 2018, at 8:52 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 18, 2018, at 8:45 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:

Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message

On Aug 18, 2018, at 8:52 PM, Jonathan S. Katz <jk...@postgresql.org> wrote:On Aug 18, 2018, at 8:45 PM, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:I am not so sure about v11 as it is very close to release, surely we cando something for HEAD as that's cosmetic.  Anyway, if som

Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message

> On Aug 18, 2018, at 8:45 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 03:38:47PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: >>> On Saturday, August 18, 2018, Dave Cramer wrote: >>> I was referring to: >>> >>> "Materialized views are a type of relation so it is not wrong, just one >>> of man

Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message

> On Aug 17, 2018, at 6:30 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2018-Aug-17, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I Initially pointed out here[1] that running REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW as a >> non-superuser or table owner yields the following message: >&g

Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message

> On Aug 18, 2018, at 5:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Dave Cramer writes: >> This is a simple fix why push back ? > > What was being pushed back on, I think, was the claim that this needed to > be back-patched. I'd be inclined not to, since (a) the message is not > wrong, only less specific than

Re: Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message

> On Aug 18, 2018, at 5:26 PM, David G. Johnston > wrote: > > On Saturday, August 18, 2018, Jonathan S. Katz <mailto:jk...@postgresql.org>> wrote: > It’s cosmetic, but it’s a cosmetic bug: it incorrectly tells the user that > they > must be the owner of the “re

Re: Fix hints on CREATE PROCEDURE errors

> On Aug 18, 2018, at 4:22 PM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > This has been committed. Thanks - I’ve moved it off of the open items list. Jonathan signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: Fix hints on CREATE PROCEDURE errors

> On Aug 8, 2018, at 3:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> Yes, the hint should be changed. But I also think the error message >> should be changed to be more appropriate to the procedure situation >> (where is the return type?). Attached patch does both. Unlike your >> pa

Re: Pre-v11 appearances of the word "procedure" in v11 docs

> On Aug 17, 2018, at 10:15 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > Attached are my proposed patches. The first is the documentation > change, which basically just substitutes the words, with some occasional > rephrasing. And then patches to extend the syntaxes of CREATE OPERATOR, > CREATE TRIGGER,

Fix for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ownership error message

Hi,I Initially pointed out here[1] that running REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW as anon-superuser or table owner yields the following message:    test=> REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW blah;    ERROR: must be owner of relation blahThe error message should say "...owner of materialized view..."The attached patc

Re: docs: note ownership requirement for refreshing materialized views

> On Aug 17, 2018, at 9:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Dave Cramer writes: >> So it seems this patch is being ignored in this thread. > > Well, Jonathan did kind of hijack what appears to be a thread about > documentation (with an already-committed fix). I apologize if it was interpreted as hijac

Re: docs: note ownership requirement for refreshing materialized views

> On Aug 16, 2018, at 1:05 AM, Jonathan S. Katz > wrote: > >> >> On Aug 15, 2018, at 9:15 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 09:06:34PM -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >>> I played around with this feature a bit and did see

Re: docs: note ownership requirement for refreshing materialized views

> On Aug 15, 2018, at 9:15 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 09:06:34PM -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >> I played around with this feature a bit and did see this was the case. >> Also while playing around I noticed the error message was as such: >&

Re: docs: note ownership requirement for refreshing materialized views

Hi Dian, > On Aug 15, 2018, at 7:46 PM, Dian Fay wrote: > > hi all! I discovered today that the REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW documentation > doesn't mention that only the owner (or a superuser) may actually perform the > refresh operation. This patch adds a note to that effect. I played around w

Re: xact_start meaning when dealing with procedures?

> On Aug 10, 2018, at 4:39 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > On 09/08/2018 20:25, Vik Fearing wrote: >> On 09/08/18 20:13, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> On 09/08/2018 19:57, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: I just noticed that when I called a procedure that commits and rollbacks - the x

Re: Stored procedures and out parameters

> On Aug 14, 2018, at 1:30 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Hi, > > On 2018-08-12 08:51:28 +0100, Shay Rojansky wrote: >> Peter, Tom, >> >> Would it be possible for you to review the following two questions? Some >> assertions have been made in this thread about the new stored procedures >> (suppo

Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw with partition wise join enabled.

> On Aug 14, 2018, at 11:51 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Etsuro Fujita > wrote: >> One thing I noticed might be an improvement is to skip >> build_joinrel_partition_info if the given joinrel will be to have >> consider_partitionwise_join=false; in the previous pa

Re: Draft release notes are up

On Aug 4, 2018, at 1:17 PM, Jonathan S. Katz <jk...@postgresql.org> wrote:On Aug 4, 2018, at 12:17 PM, Jonathan S. Katz <jk...@postgresql.org> wrote:On Aug 4, 2018, at 12:11 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:"Jonathan S. Katz" <jk...@postgresql.org> writ

Re: Draft release notes are up

> On Aug 4, 2018, at 12:17 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > > >> On Aug 4, 2018, at 12:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> "Jonathan S. Katz" writes: >>> [ s/interruptable/interruptible/ ] >> >> Huh ... I hadn't actually known that the

Re: Draft release notes are up

> On Aug 4, 2018, at 12:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > "Jonathan S. Katz" writes: >> [ s/interruptable/interruptible/ ] > > Huh ... I hadn't actually known that the two forms weren't more or less > equally acceptable, but a bit of dictionary-perusing

Re: Draft release notes are up

> On Aug 3, 2018, at 6:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > First cut at release notes for next week's minor releases is up at > > https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=c1455de2af2eb06ee493f9982f060ac7e571f656 > > If you prefer not to read XML markup, they should appear in t

Re: Memory leak with CALL to Procedure with COMMIT.

> On Jul 23, 2018, at 3:06 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:19:12PM +0530, Prabhat Sahu wrote: >> While testing with PG procedure, I found a memory leak on HEAD, with below >> steps: >> >> postgres=# CREATE OR REPLACE PROCEDURE proc1(v1 INOUT INT) >> AS $$ >> BEGIN >> c

PostgreSQL 11 Beta 3 Release: 2018-08-09

Hi, The Release Management Team is pleased to announce that the release date for PostgreSQL 11 Beta 3 is set to be 2018-08-09, which coincides with the scheduled cumulative release. As always, we appreciate everyone’s diligent effort fixing open items[1] and we hope to get even more closed before

Re: Explain buffers wrong counter with parallel plans

> On Jul 28, 2018, at 2:14 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:12 PM, Jonathan S. Katz > wrote: >> >>> On Jul 27, 2018, at 8:31 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> >>> >>> Yeah, that would be better. Today, I have tried the

Re: Explain buffers wrong counter with parallel plans

> On Jul 27, 2018, at 8:31 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 7:31 PM, Jonathan S. Katz > wrote: >> >>> On Jul 25, 2018, at 10:25 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> >>> >>> You mean to say the number (Buffers: shared re

Re: Explain buffers wrong counter with parallel plans

> On Jul 25, 2018, at 10:25 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 7:42 PM, Jonathan S. Katz > wrote: >> >> On Jul 7, 2018, at 12:03 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> I tried running the below on both 11beta2 and HEAD with the patch >> applie

Re: Explain buffers wrong counter with parallel plans

> On Jul 7, 2018, at 12:03 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 7:45 AM, Amit Kapila > wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: I have tried this idea, but it doesn't

Re: Failed assertion due to procedure created with SECURITY DEFINER option

> On Jul 4, 2018, at 3:43 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > On 03.07.18 19:20, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2018-06-29 10:19:17 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 2018-06-29 13:56:12 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 6/29/18 13:07, amul sul wrote: > This happens because of i

Re: Postgres 11 release notes

> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Yaroslav writes: >> I've noticed the following in v11 release notes: >> "Window functions now support all options shown in the SQL:2011 standard, >> including RANGE distance PRECEDING/FOLLOWING, GROUPS mode, and frame >> exclusion options" > >

Re: Postgres 11 release notes

> On Jun 30, 2018, at 2:48 PM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > >> On 30 Jun 2018, at 20:11, Brad DeJong wrote: >> >> I suggest the following edits for the PostgreSQL beta 2 release announcement. >> I did not provide the edits as a patch because I can't find the source of >> /about/news/1867. > >

Re: pg_config.h.win32 missing a set of flags from pg_config.h.in added in v11 development

> On Jun 3, 2018, at 4:29 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 05:20:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Heikki Linnakangas writes: >>> On 02/06/18 17:09, Tom Lane wrote: More concerning is that RHEL6 is on 1.0.1e: >> >>> I was only thinking of requiring 1.0.2 on Windows. >>

PostgreSQL 11 Beta 2 Release: 2018-06-28

Hi, The Release Management Team is pleased to announce that the release date for PostgreSQL 11 Beta 2 is set to be 2018-06-28, which is roughly a month after Beta 1 released. We appreciate everyone’s diligent effort fixing open issues[1] and we hope to get even more closed before the Beta 2 relea

Re: Postgres 11 release notes

> On Jun 9, 2018, at 4:35 PM, David G. Johnston > wrote: > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:08 AM, Bruce Momjian > wrote: > I have committed the first draft of the Postgres 11 release notes. I > will add more markup soon. You can view the most current version here: > >

Re: commitfest 2018-07

> On Jun 6, 2018, at 8:14 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 12:40:40PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> I'll volunteer for CFM, which seems appropriate since I was one of the >> supporters of having an extra CF. > > I don't mind helping out either. There are many patches t

Re: commitfest 2018-07

> On Jun 5, 2018, at 1:34 PM, Jonathan S. Katz > wrote: > > >> On Jun 5, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Michael Paquier writes: >>> Okay. If we tend toward this direction, I propose to do this switch in >>> two days my ti

Re: commitfest 2018-07

> On Jun 5, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Michael Paquier writes: >> Okay. If we tend toward this direction, I propose to do this switch in >> two days my time (Thursday afternoon in Tokyo) if there are no >> objections, so as anybody has hopefully time to argue back. > > I think we

Re: Add CONTRIBUTING.md

> On Jun 1, 2018, at 6:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2018-Jun-01, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > >> This would also coincide well with the content we want to move from >> the wiki to www. > > What content is that? Per a discussion at the developer meeting, bas

Re: Add CONTRIBUTING.md

> On May 29, 2018, at 11:55 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > >>>A lot of people contribute in communities via github these days. We >>>should add a CONTRIBUTING.md that explains how to do so, given that we >>>don't use github. That's shown automatically when doing a pull requests >>>et

Re: SP-GiST failing to complete SP-GiST index build

> On May 27, 2018, at 8:24 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Instrumenting the test case suggests that getQuadrant pretty much always >> returns 1, resulting in a worst-case unbalanced SPGiST tree. I think this >> is related to the fact that the

SP-GiST failing to complete SP-GiST index build

Hi, While preparing for an upcoming presentation, I was playing around with SP-GiST indexes on tstz ranges and was having an issue where some would fail to build to completion in a reasonable time, especially compared to corresponding GiST builds. Version: PostgreSQL 10.4 on x86_64-apple

Re: Performance regression with PostgreSQL 11 and partitioning

> On May 25, 2018, at 5:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Maybe it's all right to decide that this rejiggering can be left > for v12 ... did we promise anyone that it's now sane to use thousands > of partitions? Per beta release, we’ve only said “improved SELECT query performance due to enhanced parti

Re: Add PostgreSQL 11 to feature matrix page?

> On May 24, 2018, at 9:38 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > Now that PostgreSQL 11 beta is out, I wonder if it's worth to add > PostgreSQL 11 to the feature matrix page. > > https://www.postgresql.org/about/featurematrix/ > > Adding PostgreSQL 11 to the page will give users at-a-glance-dfference >

Re: Postgres 11 release notes

> On May 21, 2018, at 12:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > "Jonathan S. Katz" writes: >> Per feedback from many asynchronous threads, attached is the proposed >> patch for the list of major features. I also expect a torrent of feedback. I >> will have a correspo

Re: PG 11 feature count

> On May 18, 2018, at 10:41 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2018-May-17, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> 9.5 200 >> 9.6 220 >> 10 194 >> 11 167 > > Just yesterday Andres was telling us that pg11 has so much new stuff, > when compared to 9.5 and 9.6, that seemed

Re: Postgres 11 release notes

> On May 11, 2018, at 11:08 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I have committed the first draft of the Postgres 11 release notes. I > will add more markup soon. You can view the most current version here: > > http://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-11.html > > I expect a torrent of feedback. ;

Re: Removing unneeded self joins

> On May 16, 2018, at 1:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Hi, > > On 2018-05-16 12:26:48 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> Also, I'm not sure that I believe that it's always easy to avoid >> generating such queries. > > Yea. There's obviously plenty cases where ORMs just want to make the > database h

Re: Make description of heap records more talkative for flags

> On May 15, 2018, at 12:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2018-05-15 13:44:58 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> On 2018-Apr-23, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> >>> Now, frankly, this being mostly a debugging tool, I think it would be >>> better to have the output as complete as we can. Otherwise, whe

Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded)

> On May 10, 2018, at 12:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund writes: >> On 2018-05-10 12:18:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Next question is what to do with this. Do we want to sit on it till >>> v12, or sneak it in now? > >> Is there a decent argument for sneaking it in? I don't really ha

Re: ts_rewrite in 10.4

> On May 10, 2018, at 10:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Douglas Doole writes: >> The release notes say: >> ALTER FUNCTION pg_catalog.ts_rewrite(tsquery, tsquery, tsquery) PARALLEL >> UNSAFE; > >> But when I pull pg_proc.h from 10.4, I find: >> DATA(insert OID = 3684 ( ts_rewrite PGNSP PGUID 12 1

Re: Draft release notes are up

> On May 4, 2018, at 7:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Michael Paquier writes: >> On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 07:00:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> + >> + >> + >> + Support building with Microsoft Visual Studio 2015 (Michael Paquier) >> + > >> This will only be part of release-9.5.sgm

PostgreSQL 11 Beta 1 Release: 2018-05-24

Hi, The Release Management Team is pleased to announce that the release date for PostgreSQL 11 Beta 1 is set to be 2018-05-24. We’re excited to make the Beta available for testing and receive some early feedback around the latest major release of PostgreSQL. Please let us know if you have any qu

Re: Boolean partitions syntax

> On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Amit Langote writes: >> On 2018/04/22 2:29, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I propose the attached slightly-less-invasive version of Amit's original >>> patch as what we should do in v10 and v11, and push the patch currently >>> under discussion out to v1

Re: Native partitioning tablespace inheritance

> On Apr 12, 2018, at 3:10 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:40 PM, Jonathan S. Katz >> wrote: >>> If there are no strong objections I am going to add this to the “Older Bugs” >>> section of Open Items in a litt

Re: Native partitioning tablespace inheritance

> On Apr 12, 2018, at 2:36 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote: > > >> On Apr 12, 2018, at 09:17, Robert Haas wrote: >> Hmm, that's interesting. So you want the children to inherit the >> parent's tablespace when they are created, but if the parent's >> tablespace is later changed, the existing child

Re: Creation of wiki page for open items of v11

> On Apr 12, 2018, at 9:24 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> >> Now, maybe what you suggest for open items is to create a separate view >> using much of the commitfest app code, say >> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/openitems/NNN >

Re: Boolean partitions syntax

Hi, > On Apr 12, 2018, at 12:12 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: > > Hello. > > At Wed, 11 Apr 2018 09:43:37 -0400, "Jonathan S. Katz" > mailto:jonathan.k...@excoventures.com>> > wrote in <mailto:efeba03d-effc-46e2-a0f7-41d004870..

Re: Creation of wiki page for open items of v11

> On Apr 11, 2018, at 4:58 PM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > On 4/11/18 10:53, Tom Lane wrote: >> It's not that much work to move the items rather than remove them, > > Well, toward the end of the cycle, when the list of closed items is > quite long, then it does become a bit of a burden to ca

Re: Creation of wiki page for open items of v11

> On Apr 11, 2018, at 11:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Robert Haas writes: >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> What *does* take time is adding a link to the commit, so I'd happily >>> drop that step. As Peter says, you can usually look in the commit >>> log if you care. > >

Re: Boolean partitions syntax

> On Apr 11, 2018, at 4:33 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: > > Thank you for the comments. > > At Wed, 11 Apr 2018 13:51:55 +0900, Amit Langote > wrote in > <3d0fda29-986c-d970-a22c-b4bd44f56...@lab.ntt.co.jp> >> Horiguchi-san, >> >> Thanks for working on this. >> >> On 2018/04/11 13:20, K

Re: Boolean partitions syntax

> On Apr 10, 2018, at 1:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > David Rowley writes: >> On 11 April 2018 at 03:34, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Well, that just begs the question: why do these expressions need to >>> be immutable? What we really want, I think, is to evaluate them >>> and reduce them to constants.

Re: Boolean partitions syntax

> On Apr 9, 2018, at 10:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > "Jonathan S. Katz" writes: >> +1 based on running the above scenario on my 10.3 instance and >> receiving the same error. Is there a chance the fix could make it into >> 10.4 then? > > It's

Re: Boolean partitions syntax

> On Apr 9, 2018, at 8:28 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > On 4/7/18 11:16, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >> The last line yielding: >> >> ERROR: syntax error at or near "TRUE" >> LINE 3: FOR VALUES IN (TRUE); >> >> [Omitted fro

Re: Boolean partitions syntax

> On Mar 21, 2018, at 10:59 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: > > Hi David. > > On 2018/03/21 23:31, David Steele wrote: >> Hi Amit, >> >> On 3/6/18 9:44 AM, David Steele wrote: >>> On 3/2/18 2:27 AM, Amit Langote wrote: On 2018/03/02 15:58, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-02-02 17:00:24 -050

Re: PostgreSQL 11 Release Management Team & Feature Freeze

> On Apr 6, 2018, at 6:57 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >> Yes. It follows the format from the previous ones, i.e: >> >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+tgmoy56w5fozeeo+i48qehl+bsvtwy-q1m0xjuhucwggw...@

Re: PostgreSQL 11 Release Management Team & Feature Freeze

> On Apr 6, 2018, at 6:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:51 AM, Jonathan S. Katz > wrote: >> The Release Management Team (RMT) for the PostgreSQL 11 release >> has been assembled and has determined that the feature freeze date >> for the

Re: csv format for psql

Hi Pavel, > On Apr 6, 2018, at 1:38 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > > 2018-04-06 5:46 GMT+02:00 Jonathan S. Katz <mailto:jk...@postgresql.org>>: > > > On Apr 5, 2018, at 11:08 PM, Peter Eisentraut > > > <mailto:peter.eisentr...@2ndquadran

Re: csv format for psql

> On Apr 5, 2018, at 11:08 PM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > On 4/1/18 03:27, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> I don't share option so CSV format should be exactly same like CSV COPY. >> COPY is designed for backups - and header is not too important there. >> When I seen some csv, then there usually hea

PostgreSQL 11 Release Management Team & Feature Freeze

Hi, The Release Management Team (RMT) for the PostgreSQL 11 release has been assembled and has determined that the feature freeze date for the PostgreSQL 11 release will be April 7, 2018. This means that any feature that will be going into the PostgreSQL 11 release must be committed before 2018-04

Re: CFM for January commitfest?

Hi Tom, > On Jan 2, 2018, at 7:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Now that the January fest has nominally started, we need somebody > to act as CF manager. Any volunteers? > > (If someone already did volunteer and I missed it, my apologies.) While this will not help for the immediate problem, after r

<    2   3   4   5   6   7