Hi
Here is a patch for fixing the function
ExecBuildSlotPartitionKeyDescription()
prologue.
Thanks,
Rushabh Lathia
www.EnterpriseDB.com
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/execPartition.c b/src/backend/executor/execPartition.c
index d275cef..2fc411a 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/execPartition.
On 23 November 2017 at 03:47, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 11/22/2017 02:39 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
> >
> >
> > T-SQL procedures returns data or OUT variables.
> >
> > I remember, it was very frustrating
> >
> > Maybe first result can be reserved for OUT variables, others for
> >
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 6:57 AM, amul sul wrote:
>> By doing following change on the v19 patch does the fix for me:
>>
>> --- a/src/backend/executor/nodeAppend.c
>> +++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeAppend.c
>> @@ -489,11 +489,9 @@ choose_next_su
Joe Conway writes:
> I just noticed that has_sequence_privilege() never got the memo about
> "WITH GRANT OPTION". Any objections to the attached going back to all
> supported versions?
That looks odd. Patch certainly makes this case consistent with the
rest of acl.c, but maybe there's some deepe
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 4:08 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 11/19/17 23:08, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> When using "n" or "y", the data sent by the client to the server about
>> the use of channel binding is a base64-encoded string of respectively
>> "n,," (biws) and "y,," (eSws). However, as noti
I just noticed that has_sequence_privilege() never got the memo about
"WITH GRANT OPTION". Any objections to the attached going back to all
supported versions?
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
d
Dmitry Shalashov writes:
> Turns out we had not 9.6 but 9.5.
I'd managed to reproduce the weird planner behavior locally in the
regression database:
regression=# create table foo (f1 int[], f2 int);
CREATE TABLE
regression=# explain select * from tenk1 where unique2 in (select distinct
unnest(f
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> On 15 November 2017 at 10:07, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 7:28 AM, Ashwin Agrawal
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/15/1297/
>>
On 18 November 2017 at 02:16, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 11/16/17 18:35, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> For the first two answers above the answer was "currently executing
>> statement", yet the third answer seems to be the procedure. So that is
>> a slight discrepancy.
>
> That's the way function execut
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Attached new version.
Hi Pavel,
FYI my patch testing robot says[1]:
xml ... FAILED
regression.diffs says:
+ SELECT x.* FROM t1, xmltable(XMLNAMESPACES(DEFAULT 'http://x.y'),
'/rows/row' PASSING t1.doc COLUMNS da
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Attached patch removes a stray word in a comment in
> pg_upgrade/relfilenode.c
> which got left behind back in commit 29add0de4920e4f448a30bfc35798b
> 939c211d97.
>
Applied, thanks.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <
On 11/22/2017 02:39 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
>
>
> T-SQL procedures returns data or OUT variables.
>
> I remember, it was very frustrating
>
> Maybe first result can be reserved for OUT variables, others for
> multi result set
>
>
> It's been many years, but if I recall correctly,
>
>
> T-SQL procedures returns data or OUT variables.
>
> I remember, it was very frustrating
>
> Maybe first result can be reserved for OUT variables, others for multi
> result set
>
>
It's been many years, but if I recall correctly, T-SQL returns a series of
result sets, with no description of th
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 15 November 2017 at 10:07, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 7:28 AM, Ashwin Agrawal
> wrote:
> >>
> >> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/15/1297/
> >>
> >> Am I missing something or not looking at right place, this is
On 11/22/2017 01:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> On 11/20/17 16:25, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> We should document where returned values in PL procedures are ignored
>>> (plperl, pltcl) and where they are not (plpython, plpgsql). Maybe we
>>> should think about possibly being
On 11/19/17 23:08, Michael Paquier wrote:
> When using "n" or "y", the data sent by the client to the server about
> the use of channel binding is a base64-encoded string of respectively
> "n,," (biws) and "y,," (eSws). However, as noticed by Peter E here, a
> v10 server is able to allow connection
Hi Amit,
On 11/22/2017 03:59 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
Fixed in the attached. No other changes beside that.
I have been using the following script to look at the patch
-- test.sql --
CREATE TABLE t1 (
a integer NOT NULL,
b integer NOT NULL
) PARTITION BY HASH (b);
CREATE TABLE t1_p0
> I dunno, it seems like this is opening us to a new set of portability
> hazards (ie, sub-par implementations of arc4random) with not much gain to
> show for it.
>
Hence I reduced to three platforms only.
>
> IIUC, what this code actually does is reseed itself from /dev/urandom
> every so often
2017-11-22 19:01 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com>:
> On 11/20/17 16:25, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > I've been through this fairly closely, and I think it's pretty much
> > committable. The only big item that stands out for me is the issue of
> > OUT parameters.
>
> I fi
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 11/20/17 16:25, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> We should document where returned values in PL procedures are ignored
>> (plperl, pltcl) and where they are not (plpython, plpgsql). Maybe we
>> should think about possibly being more consistent here, too.
> Yeah, suggestions?
On 11/20/17 16:25, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I've been through this fairly closely, and I think it's pretty much
> committable. The only big item that stands out for me is the issue of
> OUT parameters.
I figured that that's something that would come up. I had intentionally
prohibited OUT parameter
On 15 November 2017 at 10:07, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 7:28 AM, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
>>
>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/15/1297/
>>
>> Am I missing something or not looking at right place, this is marked as
>> committed but don't see the change in latest master ?
>
>
ilm...@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?=) writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> More generally, why should we bother with an additional implementation?
>> Is this better than /dev/urandom, and if so why?
> If what is wanted is something more like /dev/urandom, one can call
> getentrop
On November 22, 2017 8:51:07 AM PST, ilm...@ilmari.org wrote:
>If what is wanted is something more like /dev/urandom, one can call
>getentropy(2) (or on Linux, getrandom(2)) directly, which avoids having
>to open the device file each time.
What does that buy us for our usages?
Andres
--
Sent f
Tom Lane writes:
> David CARLIER writes:
>> I m not against as such that depends of the implementation but I ve seen in
>> quick glance it s RC4 ?
arc4random uses ChaCha20 since OpenBSD 5.5 (and libbsd 0.8.0 on Linux).
It uses getentropy(2) to seed itself at regular intervals and at fork().
ht
Hi,
Please don't top-quote on postgres mailing lists.
On 2017-11-22 16:16:35 +, David CARLIER wrote:
> > David CARLIER writes:
> > > I m not against as such that depends of the implementation but I ve seen
> > in
> > > quick glance it s RC4 ?
> >
> > More generally, why should we bother wit
Basically the call never fails, always generating high quality random data
(especially the implementations based on Chacha* family, RC4 has
predictability issues), there is no need of a file descriptor.
On 22 November 2017 at 16:06, Tom Lane wrote:
> David CARLIER writes:
> > I m not against as
David CARLIER writes:
> I m not against as such that depends of the implementation but I ve seen in
> quick glance it s RC4 ?
More generally, why should we bother with an additional implementation?
Is this better than /dev/urandom, and if so why?
regards, tom lane
I m not against as such that depends of the implementation but I ve seen in
quick glance it s RC4 ?
Regards.
On 22 November 2017 at 15:37, David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:08:46PM +, David CARLIER wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > This is my first small personal contribution.
> >
>
Hello all
FYI: I think I solved it by not including the files and only using
extern "C" {
extern
void* SPI_palloc(size_t size);
extern void *
SPI_repalloc(void *pointer, size_t size);
extern void
SPI_pfree(void *pointer);
}
Thanks
Vicky
De: Vicky Verga
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:08:46PM +, David CARLIER wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is my first small personal contribution.
>
> Motivation :
> - Using fail-safe, file descriptor free solution on *BSD and Darwin system
> - Somehow avoiding at the moment FreeBSD as it still uses RC4 (seemingly
> upda
I've attached new version of the patch. It is a little bit simpler now than the
previous one.
The patch doesn't handle backslashes now, since there was a commit which fixes
quoted-substring handling recently.
Anyway I'm not sure that this handling was necessary.
I've checked queries from this th
Attached patch removes a stray word in a comment in pg_upgrade/relfilenode.c
which got left behind back in commit 29add0de4920e4f448a30bfc35798b939c211d97.
cheers ./daniel
pg_upgrade_comment.patch
Description: Binary data
On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> I am seeing the assertion failure as below on executing the above
>>> mentioned Create statement:
>>
>
> - if (!ExecContextForcesOi
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 5:39 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> In this case, the join *can* cause row duplicates, but the distinct or
> group by would filter these out again anyway, so in these cases, we'd
> not only get the benefit of not joining but also not having to remove
> the duplicate rows caused
All,
I have high availability multi instance implementation of PostgreSQL using
PgPooL v3.6. I am thinking of doing data separation and change data capture
using logical replication . Any ideas?
Thank you
Dr. Nathaniel Taylor, Ph.D (Comp. Sci.),C|EH,CASP
LM, CPO, DCPS2- Enterprise Systems Dat
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:08 PM, David CARLIER wrote:
> Motivation :
> - Using fail-safe, file descriptor free solution on *BSD and Darwin system
> - Somehow avoiding at the moment FreeBSD as it still uses RC4 (seemingly
> updated to Chacha20 for FreeBSD 12.0 and eventually backported later on).
>
Hi Andres and Peter,
Here's a new patch set with responses to the last batch of review comments.
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hm. The way you access this doesn't quite seem right:
> ...
> + matches := regexp_matches(line, ' Batches: ([0-9]+)');
> ...
>
> Why not
On 21 November 2017 at 17:24, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> On 13 November 2017 at 18:25, David Rowley
> wrote:
>>
>> 30. The following chunk of code is giving me a headache trying to
>> verify which arrays are which size:
>>
>> ExecSetupPartitionTupleRouting(rel,
>>mtstate->resultRelInfo,
>>(
Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Antonin Houska wrote:
> > * ExecIncrementalSort()
> >
> > ** if (node->tuplesortstate == NULL)
> >
> > If both branches contain the expression
> >
> > node->groupsCount++;
> >
> > I suggest it to be moved outside the "if" construct.
>
> Done.
One more comme
Thanks Amit.
Looking at the latest v25 patch.
On 2017/11/16 23:50, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> Below has the responses for both Amit's and David's comments, starting
> with Amit's
> On 2 November 2017 at 12:40, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2017/10/24 0:15, Amit Khandekar wrote:
>>> On 16 Octobe
On 2017/11/22 6:31, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
The attached will make the constraint to look like:
>>>
>>> Uh, if the constraint exclusion logic we're using is drawing false
>>> conclusions, we need to fix it so it doesn't, not change the
>>> c
On 2017/11/22 17:42, amul sul wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2017/11/22 13:45, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
>>> Attaching patch to fix as well as regression test.
>>
>> Thanks for the patch. About the code, how about do it like the attached
>> instead?
>>
>
> Looks
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Hi Rushabh,
>
> On 2017/11/22 13:45, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
>> Consider the below test:
>>
>> CREATE TABLE range_tab(a int, b int) PARTITION BY RANGE(a);
>> CREATE TABLE range_tab_p1 PARTITION OF range_tab FOR VALUES FROM (minvalue)
>> TO (10)
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:27 AM, atorikoshi
wrote:
> [set_final_lsn_2.patch]
Hi Torikoshi-san,
FYI "make check" in contrib/test_decoding fails a couple of isolation
tests, one with an assertion failure for my automatic patch tester[1].
Same result on my laptop:
test ondisk_startup ..
45 matches
Mail list logo
