Re: How is the PostgreSQL debuginfo file generated

A little trick： 1. configure with —enable-debug, run “make install”, use this build result as debuginfo 2. then run “make install-strip”, use this result as release However the it is not the regular debuginfo, you still can call gdb with it. Additionally, you can dump the real debuginfo from it

Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions

On 24 November 2017 at 13:44, Nikhil Sontakke wrote: > > > This could create an inconsistent view of the catalogs if our prepared > txn > > did any DDL. For example, we might've updated a pg_class row, so we > created > > a new row and set xmax on the old one. Vacuum may

Re: Failed to delete old ReorderBuffer spilled files

On 24 November 2017 at 12:38, atorikoshi wrote: > > > On 2017/11/24 10:57, Craig Ringer wrote: > > On 24 November 2017 at 09:20, atorikoshi co.jp > >> wrote: > > > >> > >> Thanks for letting me know. > >> I think I only tested

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

On 2017/11/23 21:57, Amit Khandekar wrote: > If we collect the partition keys in expand_partitioned_rtentry(), we > need to pass the root relation also, so that we can convert the > partition key attributes to root rel descriptor. And the other thing > is, may be, we can check beforehand (in

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > > > Agree. However, there was ab existing comment in create_append_path() saying > "We don't bother with inventing a cost_append(), but just do it here", which > implies at sometime in future we may need it;

Re: [HACKERS] HASH_CHUNK_SIZE vs malloc rounding

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> It doesn't seem that crazy to expose aset.c's overhead size to client >> code does it? Most client code wouldn't care, but things that are >> doing something closer to memory allocator work themselves like >> dense_alloc

Re: Failed to delete old ReorderBuffer spilled files

On 2017/11/24 10:57, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 24 November 2017 at 09:20, atorikoshi > wrote: > >> >> Thanks for letting me know. >> I think I only tested running "make check" at top directory, sorry >> for my insufficient test. >> >> The test failure

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Thomas Munro < > thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Haribabu Kommi >> wrote: >> > After I tune the GUC to go

Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions

On 23 November 2017 at 20:27, Nikhil Sontakke wrote: > > Is there any other locking scenario that we need to consider? > Otherwise, are we all ok on this point being a non-issue for 2PC > logical decoding? > Yeah. I didn't find any sort of sensible situation where

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT ON CONFLICT and partitioned tables

Thank you Simon for the review. On 2017/11/20 7:33, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 2 August 2017 at 00:56, Amit Langote wrote: > >> The patch's job is simple: > > Patch no longer applies and has some strange behaviours. > >> - Remove the check in the parser that causes

Re: How is the PostgreSQL debuginfo file generated

On 23 November 2017 at 18:38, Rui Hai Jiang wrote: > Hello hackers, > > > > I’m wondering how to build the debuginfo package from the PostgreSQL > source. > > > > For example to generate something like this one : > postgresql91-debuginfo.x86_64. > > > > Is there existing

Re: Failed to delete old ReorderBuffer spilled files

On 24 November 2017 at 09:20, atorikoshi wrote: > > Thanks for letting me know. > I think I only tested running "make check" at top directory, sorry > for my insufficient test. > > The test failure happened at the beginning of replication(creating > slot), so

Re: [HACKERS] HASH_CHUNK_SIZE vs malloc rounding

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Thomas Munro writes: >> I bet other allocators also do badly with "32KB plus a smidgen". To >> minimise overhead we'd probably need to try to arrange for exactly >> 32KB (or some other power of

Re: Failed to delete old ReorderBuffer spilled files

On 2017/11/22 16:49, Masahiko Sawada wrote: On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: On 22 November 2017 at 12:15, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: At Wed, 22 Nov 2017 12:57:34 +0900, Michael Paquier

Re: Combine function returning NULL unhandled?

On 2017-11-21 15:51:59 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > The plain transition case contains: > > if (pergroupstate->transValueIsNull) > > { > > /* > >

Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > It's my plan to get to this patch during this commitfest. I've been > travelling for open and some 24/7 work so far, but hope to get CFing soon. I hope Tsunakawa-san doesn't mind me posting another rebased version of

Re: documentation is now XML

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Oleg Bartunov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> The documentation sources are now DocBook XML, not SGML. (The files are >> still named *.sgml. That's something to think

Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods

Hi, On 11/23/2017 10:38 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote: > On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 18:47:49 +0100 > Tomas Vondra wrote: > >>> >> >> Hmmm, it still doesn't work for me. See this: >> >> test=# create extension pg_lz4 ; >> CREATE EXTENSION >> test=# create

Re: How is the PostgreSQL debuginfo file generated

Rui Hai Jiang writes: > I’m wondering how to build the debuginfo package from the PostgreSQL source. > For example to generate something like this one : > postgresql91-debuginfo.x86_64. On platforms where such things exist, that's handled by the packaging system, not by

Re: has_sequence_privilege() never got the memo

On 11/22/17 22:58, Tom Lane wrote: > 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

RE:PostgreSLQ v10.1 and xlC compiler on AIX

Hi Michael, Thanks for the information ! I'm not a PostgreSQL expert. I've found the file: ./32bit/src/test/regress/regression.diffs Since I'm rebuilding right now, I do not have just now the file for v10.1 with the issue. However, I have it for 10.0 and 9.6.6 which show the same issues. I've

Re: [HACKERS] Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)?

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Alexander Korotkov > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Peter Eisentraut >> wrote: >>> >>> On 6/6/17

Re: PostgreSLQ v10.1 and xlC compiler on AIX

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 7:57 PM, REIX, Tony wrote: > We are porting PostgreSQL v10.1 on AIX (7.2 for now). > And we have several tests failures, in 32bit and 64bit. > We are using xlc 13.01.0003.0003 with -O2. > Tests were 100% OK with version 9.6.2 . > > About 32 bit failures

Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE of partition key

On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 7:07 AM, amul sul wrote: >> Attaching POC patch that throws an error in the case of a concurrent update >> to an already deleted tuple due to UPDATE of partition key[1]. >> >>

PostgreSLQ v10.1 and xlC compiler on AIX

Hi, We are porting PostgreSQL v10.1 on AIX (7.2 for now). And we have several tests failures, in 32bit and 64bit. We are using xlc 13.01.0003.0003 with -O2. Tests were 100% OK with version 9.6.2 . About 32 bit failures within v10.1, we have 3 failures including: create_aggregate ...

Re: With commit 4e5fe9ad19, range partition missing handling for the NULL partition key

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > 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. > >> > >>

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] Faster processing at Gather node

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017-11-15 13:48:18 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> I think that we need a little bit deeper analysis here to draw any >> firm conclusions. > > Indeed. > > >> I suspect that one factor is that many of the queries