Re: Cleanup of intro.sgml

Rev 2 attached. Added: SQL/JSON SQL/XML Fixed spelling mistakes Fixed a missing closing tag. -- Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc Postgres centered full stack support, consulting and development. Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Get help:

Re: Cleanup of intro.sgml

On 8/5/19 1:13 PM, Chapman Flack wrote: On 8/5/19 3:20 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: intro.sgml today. Patch attached. Things I noticed quickly: broken up in to categoriess/in to/into/ Got it, I can make that change. Unstructured data via JSON(or XML ?) On this one, there is a lot

Cleanup of intro.sgml

-hackers, I went through and made some readability and modernization of the intro.sgml today. Patch attached. JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc Postgres centered full stack support, consulting and development. Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Get help:

Re: Thread-unsafe coding in ecpg

On 1/21/19 12:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andres Freund writes: Seems jacana might not have like this change? https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=jacana=2019-01-21%2019%3A01%3A28 Hmm. So mingw doesn't provide access to _configthreadlocale(). That's unfortunate, at least if we

Re: House style for DocBook documentation?

On 1/21/19 10:11 AM, Chapman Flack wrote: On 01/21/19 12:07, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Who is really going to "print" our docs? If they do print the docs, they are likely not going to "type in" a long URL. QR code in footnote (ducks and runs). Funny, although I know why yo

Re: House style for DocBook documentation?

On 1/21/19 10:01 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On 2019-Jan-21, Chapman Flack wrote: But the point's well taken that in /printed output/, that's of no use. Which is, in a sense, an inconsistency: in one format, you can follow the links, while in another, you're out of luck. Maybe a simpler

Re: House style for DocBook documentation?

On 1/21/19 8:46 AM, Chapman Flack wrote: On 01/21/19 09:12, Alvaro Herrera wrote: (thinks to self half-seriously about an XSL transform for generating printed output that could preserve link-texted links, add raised numbers, and produce a numbered URLs section at the back) Well, if you have

Re: Statement-level rollback

On 12/7/18 12:50 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On 2018-Dec-07, Robert Haas wrote: More generally, whether or not we should "keep something away from our users" really depends on how likely the upsides are to occur relative to the downsides. We don't try to keep users from running DELETE because

Re: make install getting slower

On 12/4/18 12:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote: Hi, best of three of time make -s install INSTALL=/bin/true 9.3: 1.53s 9.4: 1.55s 9.5: 1.90s 9.6: 2.10s 10: 2.45s 11: 2.81s master: 2.99s Obviously a part of that can be explained by the tree getting bigger, but that can't be all of it. It also gets

Re: Connection limit doesn't work for superuser

On 11/7/18 10:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 1:14 PM Tom Lane wrote: I think that having superusers be immune to datconnlimit is actually the right thing; for one reason, because datconnlimit can be set by database owners, who should not be able to lock superusers out of

Re: replication_slots usability issue

On 10/30/18 10:52 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2018-10-30 11:51:09 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 12:13:04PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: I don't think this quite is the problem. ISTM the issue is rather that StartupReplicationSlots() *needs* to check whether wal_level >

Re: replication_slots usability issue

On 10/29/18 11:26 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On October 29, 2018 1:31:56 PM EDT, "Joshua D. Drake" wrote: -Hackers, Working on 9.6 today (unsure if fixed in newer versions). Had an issue where the wal was 280G despite max_wal_size being 8G. Found out there were stale replication

replication_slots usability issue

-Hackers, Working on 9.6 today (unsure if fixed in newer versions). Had an issue where the wal was 280G despite max_wal_size being 8G. Found out there were stale replication slots from a recent base backup. I went to drop the replication slots and found that since the wal_level was set to

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On 09/17/2018 08:11 AM, Dmitri Maziuk wrote: On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 12:52:34 + Martin Mueller wrote: ... The overreach is dubious on both practical and theoretical grounds. "Stick to your knitting " or the KISS principle seem good advice in this context. Moderated mailing lists ain't been

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On 09/14/2018 07:41 AM, James Keener wrote: > Community is people who joined it We're not a "community." I do not think you are going to get very many people on board with that argument. As anyone who knows me will attest I am one of the most contrarian members of this community but I still

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On 09/14/2018 06:59 AM, Robert Eckhardt wrote: I really have to object to this addition: "This Code is meant to cover all interaction between community members, whether or not it takes place within postgresql.org infrastructure, so long as there is not another Code of

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On 09/14/2018 07:36 AM, Dave Page wrote: On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:21 PM, James Keener > wrote: Now, you may say that (2) would be rejected by the committee, but I would counter that it's still a stain on me and something that

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On 09/14/2018 07:51 AM, Dave Page wrote: If that business is publicly bringing the project into disrepute, or harassing other community members and they approach us about it, then it becomes our business. If it's unrelated to PostgreSQL, then it's your personal business and not

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On 09/14/2018 07:14 AM, Dave Page wrote: On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake <mailto:j...@commandprompt.com>> wrote: On 09/14/2018 01:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote: I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been moving. The

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On 09/14/2018 01:31 AM, Chris Travers wrote: I apologize for the glacial slowness with which this has all been moving. The core team has now agreed to some revisions to the draft CoC based on the comments in this thread; see

Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)

On 08/21/2018 11:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: XP at least is essentially a dead platform for us. My animals are not able to build anything after release 10. I wouldn't think XP should even be on our list anymore. Microsoft hasn't supported it in 4 years. JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. ||

Re: Online enabling of checksums

On 08/01/2018 09:20 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: my problem is that I think the "restart" approach is just using the entirely wrong hammer to solve the problem at hand. At the very least it's very problematic in respect to replicas, which need to know about the setting too, and can have similar

Re: Online enabling of checksums

On 07/31/2018 12:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: Hi!, Thanks for reviewing, I’ve updated the patch with the above mentioned incorrect linkends as well as fixed the comments you made in a previous review. The CF-builder-bot is red, but it’s because it’s trying to apply the already committed patch

Re: Deprecating, and scheduling removal of, pg_dump's tar format.

On 07/27/2018 10:05 AM, Andres Freund wrote: Yeah. I don't mind removing really marginal features to ease maintenance, but I'm not sure that this one is all that marginal or that we'd save that much maintenance by eliminating it. My point is more that it forces users to make choices whenever

Re: Deprecating, and scheduling removal of, pg_dump's tar format.

On 07/26/2018 07:41 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote: On Jul 26, 2018, at 19:35, Peter Geoghegan wrote: Why, specifically, would it make them unhappy? Forensic and archive backups in .tar format (which I know of users doing) would require a two-step restore process on newer versions. I am a +1

Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents?

On 07/23/2018 12:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: So, is it FUD? The core needs paid-for legal advice, not speculation. I'm quite certain that a software license can make a patent grant to the satisfaction of many open source communities, and almost certainly to the satisfaction of the PG

Re: Have an encrypted pgpass file

On 07/18/2018 04:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera writes: Seems to me that passing %-specifiers to the command would make it more useful (%u for "user", "host" etc) -- your command could refuse to give you a password for the superuser account for instance but grant one for a read-only

Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling

On 07/10/2018 01:15 PM, Jerry Jelinek wrote: Thanks to everyone who took the time to look at the patch and send me feedback.  I'm happy to work on improving the documentation of this new tunable to clarify when it should be used and the implications. I'm trying to understand more specifically

Re: shared-memory based stats collector

On 07/06/2018 12:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Will stats, if we move toward the suggested changes be "less" accurate than they are now? We already know that stats are generally not accurate but they are close enough. If we m

Re: shared-memory based stats collector

On 07/06/2018 11:57 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2018-07-06 14:49:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: I think we also have to ask ourselves in general whether snapshots of this data are worth what they cost. I don't think anyone would doubt that a consistent snapshot of the data is better than an

Re: "interesting" issue with restore from a pg_dump with a database-wide search_path

On 07/06/2018 11:27 AM, Larry Rosenman wrote: when I pg_dump -Fc the database and then try to restore it after a create database, I get errors. To get a clean restare I need to do: Knowing the errors would be helpful. jD --- \set DB `echo ${DB}` CREATE SCHEMA IF NOT EXISTS postgis; CREATE

Re: I'd like to discuss scaleout at PGCon

On 06/22/2018 11:28 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: Key features from my perspective: *) fdw in parallel. how do i do it today? ghetto implemented parallel queries with asynchronous dblink *) column store Although not in core, we do have this as an extension through Citus don't we? JD --

Re: libpq compression

On 06/06/2018 10:20 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: Well, psql really allows to specify complete connection string with -d options (although it is not mentioned in help). But still I think that it is inconvenient to require user to write complete connection string to be able to specify

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On 06/05/2018 07:45 AM, Chris Travers wrote: It is my hope that PostgreSQL.Org -Core chooses members for that committee that are exceedingly diverse otherwise it is just an echo chamber for a single ideology and that will destroy this community. If I may suggest:  The committee

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On 06/03/2018 04:08 PM, Gavin Flower wrote: My comments: 1) Reiterate my contention that this is a solution is search of problem. Still it looks like it is going forward, so see below. 2) "... engaging in behavior that may bring the PostgreSQL project into disrepute, ..." This to me is

Re: Code of Conduct plan

On 06/03/2018 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct We are now asking for a final round of community comments. Please send any public comments to the pgsql-general list (only). If you wish to make a private comment, you may send it to c...@postgresql.org.

Re: PG 11 feature count

On 05/17/2018 04:29 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: I regularly track the number of items documented in each major release. I use the attached script. You might be surprised to learn that PG 11 has the lowest feature count of any release back through 7.4: 7.4 280 8.0 238

GSOC 2018

-hackers, Who is coordinating GSOC this year? Thanks, JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development. Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org * Unless otherwise

Re: Creation of wiki page for open items of v11

On 04/11/2018 10:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Andres Freund wrote: On 2018-04-11 13:54:34 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: The other proposal was that we could have a simple web app to track open items. After all, we now know what we need from it. A wiki page seems more laborious. (The

Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS

On 04/10/2018 12:51 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: -hackers, The thread is picking up over on the ext4 list. They don't update their archives as often as we do, so I can't link to the discussion. What would be the preferred method of sharing the info? Thanks to Anthony for this link: http

Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS

-hackers, The thread is picking up over on the ext4 list. They don't update their archives as often as we do, so I can't link to the discussion. What would be the preferred method of sharing the info? Thanks, JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc ***

Re: Reopen logfile on SIGHUP

On 04/10/2018 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Robert Haas writes: On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote: IOW, I think a fair response to this is "if you're using logrotate with Postgres, you're doing it wrong". Well, the original post says

Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS

-hackers, I reached out to the Linux ext4 devs, here is ty...@mit.edu response: """ Hi Joshua, This isn't actually an ext4 issue, but a long-standing VFS/MM issue. There are going to be multiple opinions about what the right thing to do. I'll try to give as unbiased a description as

Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS

On 04/09/2018 09:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: In the mean time, I propose that we fsync() on close() before we age FDs out of the LRU on backends. Yes, that will hurt throughput and cause stalls, but we don't seem to have

Re: Online enabling of checksums

On 04/05/2018 01:12 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2018-04-05 22:06:36 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: I have now pushed this latest version with some minor text adjustments and a catversion bump. Thanks for all the reviews! I want to be on the record that I think merging a nontrival feature that

Re: csv format for psql

On 03/28/2018 12:35 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: On Monday, March 26, 2018, Daniel Verite > wrote: We could even support only the comma and make it non-configurable based on the fact it's Comma-Separated-Values, not

Re: Better Upgrades

On 02/05/2018 04:09 PM, David Fetter wrote: Does this seem worth coding up in its current form? No. The pg_upgrade utility is awesome and I have commended Bruce on multiple occasions about his work with it. That being said, the "solution" is to support in-place upgrades and our work should be

Re: let's make the list of reportable GUCs configurable (was Re: Add %r substitution for psql prompts to show recovery status)

On 01/10/2018 09:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote: ... but I don't think it fixes that, because you couldn't send this new request without making an assumption about the server version being new enough to support it. My entire beef with making server_version_num be GUC_REPORT is that it would encourage

Re: Finalizing logical replication limitations as well as potential features

On 01/04/2018 01:26 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Joshua D. Drake wrote: We just queue/audit the changes as they happen and sync up the changes after the initial sync completes. This already happens. There is an initial sync, and there's logical decoding that queues any changes that exist "

Re: TODO list (was Re: Contributing with code)

On 01/03/2018 09:00 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Joshua D. Drake wrote: There's already https://postgresql.uservoice.com/forums/21853-general which seems to work pretty well. Here's the list of completed items: https://postgresql.uservoice.com/forums/21853-general?status_id=124172 Well that's

Re: TODO list (was Re: Contributing with code)

On 01/03/2018 07:49 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: O.k. what does it tell us though? Is it a resource issue? Is it a barrier of entry issue? Lack of ownership/ruthlessness.  While I can edit it to remove items that don't seem desirable (or comprehensible, or whatever) I'm not likely to do so,

Re: TODO list (was Re: Contributing with code)

On 01/02/2018 11:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote: If we're not going to maintain/curate it properly, I agree it's not worth keeping it around. But I'd rather

Finalizing logical replication limitations as well as potential features

-Hackers, As I continue to test Logical Replication and its native capabilities I have found the following: It appears it is not possible to do this: publisher->public.foo replicates to subscriber->private.foo This one seems like a relatively simple fix (theoretically) and I think should

Re: Logical replication without a Primary Key

On 12/18/2017 12:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote: Just ot make sure: You're saying there's no problem here, and that logical rep is behaving correctly, right? Correct. I am not sure where the miscommunication was (fully willing to accept it was on my side) but if I update multiple rows in a

Re: Logical replication without a Primary Key

On 12/07/2017 12:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote: Not a problem. If you updated both rows, then there's two cases: a) the update actually changed the column values. In which case the first per-row change that's replicated updates the first row, but the second one won't again find it as

Re: Logical replication without a Primary Key

On 12/07/2017 05:30 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: How does that work? Is it using one of the hidden columns on a row? It means that for example if an update record is produced, the entire row is included in the record as the key. Thanks Peter, Craig also responded, The confusion I have is

Logical replication without a Primary Key

-Hackers, In the docs it says: " If the table does not have any suitable key, then it can be set to replica identity“full”, which means the entire row becomes the key. " How does that work? Is it using one of the hidden columns on a row? Thanks, JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. ||

Do we accept doc changes to back branches?

-hackers, I don't recall, do we allow non-bug fix (or what constitutes a bug) for back branches with docs? I have been reviewing the logical replication docs and they could use some love but I need to know which branch I should start work on. Thanks, JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. ||