Re: Performance regression with PostgreSQL 11 and partitioning

Hi, Le 09/07/2018 à 22:10, David Rowley a écrit : > On 10 July 2018 at 00:47, Christophe Courtois > wrote: > (Christophe reports 2x performance regression with PG11 when using > 1 partitions) > Thanks for the report. Can you supply your test case when shows this > regression? > Please, can y

Re: Let's remove DSM_IMPL_NONE.

Thank you for the notice. At Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:30:22 +0300, Arthur Zakirov wrote in <20180709093021.GA9309@zakirov.localdomain> > Hello, > > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 06:07:24PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > The new version v4 is changed in the following points. > > > > - Don't renumber t

Re: Recovery performance of DROP DATABASE with many tablespaces

On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 01:42:20AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > TBH, I have no numbers measured by the test. > One question about your test is; how did you measure the *recovery time* > of DROP DATABASE? Since it's *recovery* performance, basically it's not easy > to measure that. It would be simpl

Re: Usage of epoch in txid_current

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Andres Freund wrote:, >>> (errmsg_internal("next transaction ID: %u:%u; next >>> OID: %u", >>> - >>> checkPoint.nextXidEpoch, checkP

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

(2018/07/09 20:43), Ashutosh Bapat wrote: I don't have any numbers right now, so that is nothing but a concern. But as I said in a previous email, in the approach I proposed, we don't need to spend extra cycles where partitioning is not involved. I think that is a good thing in itself. No? A

Re: Usage of epoch in txid_current

On 10 July 2018 at 10:40, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-07-10 10:32:44 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > > On 10 July 2018 at 07:35, Thomas Munro > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I played around with this idea yesterday. Experiment-grade patch > > > attached. Approach: > > > > > > 1. Introduce a new ty

Re: Failure assertion in GROUPS mode of window function in current HEAD

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Masahiko Sawada writes: >> I got an assertion failure when I use GROUPS mode and specifies offset >> without ORDER BY clause. The reproduction steps and the backtrace I >> got are following. > >> =# create table test as select 1 as c; >> =# selec

Re: Usage of epoch in txid_current

On 2018-07-10 10:32:44 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 10 July 2018 at 07:35, Thomas Munro > wrote: > > > > > I played around with this idea yesterday. Experiment-grade patch > > attached. Approach: > > > > 1. Introduce a new type BigTransactionId (better names welcome). > > > > txid_current(

Re: Usage of epoch in txid_current

On 10 July 2018 at 10:32, Craig Ringer wrote: > > >> I think it's probably a good idea to make it very explicit when moving >> between big and small transaction IDs, hence the including of the word >> 'big' in variable and function names and the use of a function-like >> macro (rather than impli

Re: Usage of epoch in txid_current

On 10 July 2018 at 07:35, Thomas Munro wrote: > > I played around with this idea yesterday. Experiment-grade patch > attached. Approach: > > 1. Introduce a new type BigTransactionId (better names welcome). > txid_current() should be changed to BigTransactionId too. It's currently bigint. Use

Re: Usage of epoch in txid_current

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-07-10 13:20:52 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: >> I don't know what to think about the encoding or meaning of non-normal >> xids in this thing. > > I'm not following what you mean by this? While defining FullTransactionIdPrecedes() in the

Re: [PATCH] Timestamp for a XLOG_BACKUP_END WAL-record

Hi, On 2018-07-10 06:41:32 +0500, Andrey V. Lepikhov wrote: > This functionality is needed in practice when we have to determine a > recovery time of specific backup. What do you mean by "recovery time of specific backup"? > This code developed in compatibility with WAL segments, which do not h

Extension relocation vs. schema qualification

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:59:57PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 04:24:02PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I am not sure we can fix this without requiring people to drop and > > > recreate such indexes. However, I am even at a loss in how to fix the > > > CREATE FUNCTION to

[PATCH] Timestamp for a XLOG_BACKUP_END WAL-record

Hi, I prepared a patch which adds a timestamp into a XLOG_BACKUP_END WAL-record. This functionality is needed in practice when we have to determine a recovery time of specific backup. This code developed in compatibility with WAL segments, which do not have a timestamp in a XLOG_BACKUP_END reco

Re: Usage of epoch in txid_current

On 2018-07-10 13:20:52 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > defined in transam.h because c.h didn't feel right. Yea, that looks better. > Client code lost the ability to use operator < directly. I needed to > use a static inline function as a constructor. I lost the > interchangeability with the wide

Re: missing toast table for pg_policy

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 09:19:35PM -0400, Joe Conway wrote: > If you can wait for the next commitfest (the original one I put the > patch into, i.e. September) I am committed to making it happen. But if > you are anxious to getting this into the current commitfest, go for it. > I am in the middle o

Re: Usage of epoch in txid_current

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-07-09 19:56:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Andres Freund writes: >> > On 2018-07-10 11:35:59 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: >> >> I think it's probably a good idea to make it very explicit when moving >> >> between big and small transacti

Re: missing toast table for pg_policy

On 07/09/2018 09:16 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 02:45:26PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 15.06.18 21:15, Joe Conway wrote: >>> Not surprising -- thanks for the update. >>> It occurred to be that we could go further and create most toast tables automatically

Re: Postgres 11 release notes

On 2018-07-09 16:52:11 +0200, David Fetter wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:36:30AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 10:28:15PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2018-07-09 14:18:14 +0900, Tatsuro Yamada wrote: > > > > Hi Bruce, > > > > > > > > > I expect a torrent of

Re: missing toast table for pg_policy

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 02:45:26PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 15.06.18 21:15, Joe Conway wrote: >> Not surprising -- thanks for the update. >> >>> It occurred to be that we could go further and create most toast >>> tables automatically by taking advantage of the fact that the toast >>> c

Re: [HACKERS] Replication status in logical replication

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 05:25:55PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Thank you for updating the patch. The patch looks fine to me, and I > agree with all changes you made. Thanks. If there are no objections, then I will try to wrap this stuff on Thursday my time. -- Michael signature.asc Descript

Re: Postgres 11 release notes

On 2018/07/09 23:52, David Fetter wrote: On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:36:30AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 10:28:15PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: On 2018-07-09 14:18:14 +0900, Tatsuro Yamada wrote: Hi Bruce, I expect a torrent of feedback.;-) Could you add this fix to

Re: Non-reserved replication slots and slot advancing

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 02:48:28PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2018-Jul-09, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2018-07-09 15:48:33 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > + if (XLogRecPtrIsInvalid(MyReplicationSlot->data.restart_lsn)) > > > + { > > > + ReplicationSlotRelease(); > > > + e

Re: Usage of epoch in txid_current

On 2018-07-09 17:08:34 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2018-07-09 19:56:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund writes: > > > On 2018-07-10 11:35:59 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > > >> I think it's probably a good idea to make it very explicit when moving > > >> between big and small t

Re: LLVM jit and matview

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 04:04:11PM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > # matview.sql > ... > =# REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY mvtest_tm; > server closed the connection unexpectedly > This probably means the server terminated abnormally > before or while processing the request. > The connection t

Re: Usage of epoch in txid_current

Hi, On 2018-07-09 19:56:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2018-07-10 11:35:59 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > >> I think it's probably a good idea to make it very explicit when moving > >> between big and small transaction IDs, hence the including of the word > >> 'big' in var

Re: cannot restore schema with is not distinct from on hstore since PG 9.6.8

On 07/09/2018 11:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Marc Cousin writes: This is a really simple test case, I think it's an unintended consequence of CVE-2018-1058: demo=# create extension hstore; CREATE EXTENSION demo=# create table test (a hstore); CREATE TABLE demo=# create index idx_test_not_distinct

Re: Simplify final sync in pg_rewind's target folder and add --no-sync

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 04:38:11PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Looks good to me. I'll mark this as "ready for committer". Thanks Heikki for the review, I have committed both things after splitting it into two commits for clarity, and fixing a comment as fsync_pgdata also initiates a write-b

Re: Usage of epoch in txid_current

Andres Freund writes: > On 2018-07-10 11:35:59 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: >> I think it's probably a good idea to make it very explicit when moving >> between big and small transaction IDs, hence the including of the word >> 'big' in variable and function names and the use of a function-like >> ma

Re: Usage of epoch in txid_current

On 2018-07-10 11:35:59 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > I played around with this idea yesterday. Experiment-grade patch > attached. Cool! > I think it's probably a good idea to make it very explicit when moving > between big and small transaction IDs, hence the including of the word > 'big' in var

small development tip: Consider using the gold linker

Hi, FWIW, I've lately noticed that I spend a fair time waiting for the linker during edit-compile-test cycles. Due to an independent issue I just used the gold linker, and the speedup is quite noticable. Just relinking the backend, without rebuilding anything else, goes from 0m3.975s to 0m1.585s

Re: Usage of epoch in txid_current

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >>> Either way, it is not clear to me how we will keep it >>> updated after recovery. Right now, the mechanism is quite simple, at >>> the beginning of a recovery we take the value of nextX

Re: [HACKERS] Possibly too stringent Assert() in b-tree code

Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes: > At Mon, 26 Sep 2016 09:12:04 +0530, Amit Kapila > wrote in >>> It seems to me that we do take actions for conflict resolution during >>> the page deletion (that looks to be covered by XLOG_HEAP2_CLEANUP_INFO >>> which we emit in vacuum), but not sure if that is suffi

Re: [HACKERS] Clock with Adaptive Replacement

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> All of that having been said, maybe we have an independent low-level >> problem: we increase usage_count when we pin a buffer, even if we last >> pinned the buffer 5ms ago. IIRC a change to this went in when ARC went >> in (and came out with A

Re: Locking B-tree leafs immediately in exclusive mode

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > I'm sorry, but I didn't understand this guess. I agree that moving > right within _bt_findinsertloc() might be worse than moving right > within _bt_moveright(). But why should it happen more often, if both > with and without patch that

Re: Failure assertion in GROUPS mode of window function in current HEAD

Masahiko Sawada writes: > I got an assertion failure when I use GROUPS mode and specifies offset > without ORDER BY clause. The reproduction steps and the backtrace I > got are following. > =# create table test as select 1 as c; > =# select sum(c) over (partition by c groups between 1 preceding a

Re: Locking B-tree leafs immediately in exclusive mode

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 8:18 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 9:43 AM, Alexander Korotkov > wrote: > > In this case it also looks like we observed 1% regression. Despite 1% > > may seem to be very small, I think we should clarify whether it really > > exists. I have at least tw

Re: WAL prefetch

On 09.07.2018 21:28, Andres Freund wrote: Hi, On 2018-07-09 11:59:06 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: * During the design phase, I looked into using bgworkers but given the number of in-flight pread(2) calls required to fully utilize the IO subsystem, I opted for something threaded (I was

Re: no partition pruning when partitioning using array type

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Tracing it down, turns out that transformPartitionBoundValue gets from > coerce_to_target_type a CoerceToDomain node. It then tries to apply > expression_planner() to simplify the expression, but that one doesn't > want anything to do with a domain coercion (for apparentl

Re: no partition pruning when partitioning using array type

Another thing I realized when testing this is that partitioning over a domain doesn't work very nicely (tested in 10 and master): create domain overint as int; create table pt (a overint) partition by range (a); create table pt1 partition of pt for values from (0) to (100); results in: ERROR: s

Re: [PATCH] Improve geometric types

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 7:21 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 06/05/2018 06:32 PM, Emre Hasegeli wrote: >>> Those underscore-prefixed names are defined in Microsoft's >>> [3][4]. So now I'm wondering if win32_port.h needs to >>> #include if (_MSC_VER < 1800). >> >> I don't have the C experience to d

Re: WAL prefetch

On 08.07.2018 00:47, Tomas Vondra wrote: Hi, I've done a bit of testing on the current patch, mostly to see how much the prefetching can help (if at all). While the patch is still in early WIP stages (at least that's my assessment, YMMV), the improvement are already quite significant. I've a

Re: peripatus build failures....

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 05:25:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > I'd been hesitant to back-patch dddfc4cb2 back in April; but now that > > it's survived some beta testing, I think that doing so seems like the > > most appropriate way to fix this. > > Done. Hopefully I didn't break anythin

Re: peripatus build failures....

I wrote: > I'd been hesitant to back-patch dddfc4cb2 back in April; but now that > it's survived some beta testing, I think that doing so seems like the > most appropriate way to fix this. Done. Hopefully I didn't break anything; a lot of this code has mutated to some extent since 9.3. But I exp

Re: no partition pruning when partitioning using array type

Alvaro Herrera writes: > The same occurs in 11 and master. I think this is because the > polymorphic type is resolved for the function ahead of time (at > table creation time); partexprs shows > ({FUNCEXPR :funcid 35757 :funcresulttype 23 :funcretset false :funcvariadic > false :funcformat 0 :

Re: pgsql: Fix crash when ALTER TABLE recreates indexes on partitions

On 2018-07-04 20:33:05 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-07-04 13:15:19 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2018-Jun-30, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > > > Fix crash when ALTER TABLE recreates indexes on partitions > > > > > > So ... buildfarm member skink has been repo

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

David, On 07/09/2018 02:52 PM, David Fetter wrote: > Unfortunately, this does not mean anything until courts have upheld > it. Were Red Hat to be taken over by people who didn't see things > this way, it is a long way from clear that such a statement would be > upheld in every court, which is wha

Re: Un peu décu : Re: Performance regression with PostgreSQL 11 and partitioning

On 10 July 2018 at 00:47, Christophe Courtois wrote: > J'ai eu peur, 7d872c91a3f9d49b56117557cdbb0c3d4c620687 n'est pas en bêta > 2 mais bien dans REL_11_STABLE. > > J'ai relancé mes scripts avec 1 partitions vides, un peu à l'arrache > et sans rigueur : la dernière version incluant ce patch e

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql - additional extra checks

On 2018-Jul-09, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-07-09 15:44:36 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > + ereport(errlevel, > > > (errcode(ERRCODE_TOO_MANY_ROWS), > > >errmsg("query returned more

Re: Generating partitioning tuple conversion maps faster

On 9 July 2018 at 23:28, Alexander Kuzmenkov wrote: > On 07/09/2018 10:13 AM, David Rowley wrote: >> I've attached v5. > > v5 looks good to me, I've changed the status to ready. Many thanks for reviewing this. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Developmen

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql - additional extra checks

On 2018-07-09 15:44:36 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > + ereport(errlevel, > > (errcode(ERRCODE_TOO_MANY_ROWS), > > errmsg("query returned more > > than one row"), > > -

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql - additional extra checks

> + ereport(errlevel, > (errcode(ERRCODE_TOO_MANY_ROWS), >errmsg("query returned more > than one row"), > - errdetail ? > errdetai

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql - additional extra checks

On 07/03/2018 03:45 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 03/20/2018 01:35 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> >> >> On 03/20/2018 05:36 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: >>> >>> >>> 2018-03-19 21:47 GMT+01:00 Tomas Vondra >> >: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm looking at the updated pat

Re: [PATCH] Improve geometric types

On 06/05/2018 06:32 PM, Emre Hasegeli wrote: >> Those underscore-prefixed names are defined in Microsoft's >> [3][4]. So now I'm wondering if win32_port.h needs to >> #include if (_MSC_VER < 1800). > > I don't have the C experience to decide the correct way. There are > currently many .c fil

Re: no partition pruning when partitioning using array type

On 2018-Jul-09, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2018/07/07 9:19, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2018-May-08, Amit Langote wrote: > > > >> I would like to revisit this as a bug fix for get_partition_operator() to > >> be applied to both PG 10 and HEAD. In the former case, it fixes the bug > >> that constr

Re: Non-reserved replication slots and slot advancing

On 2018-Jul-09, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-07-09 15:48:33 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > + if (XLogRecPtrIsInvalid(MyReplicationSlot->data.restart_lsn)) > > + { > > + ReplicationSlotRelease(); > > + ereport(ERROR, > > + (errcode(ERRCODE_FEA

Re: Non-reserved replication slots and slot advancing

On 2018-07-09 15:48:33 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 03:13:04PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > Looking the attached patch, I noticed that both "WAL" and "wal" > > are used in similar ERROR messages. Grepping the source tree > > showed me that it is always in upper cas

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: full merge join on comparison clause

On 07/09/2018 04:12 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 6:31 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: I will continue reviewing the patches. Here are some more review comments Ashutosh, Many thanks for the review, I'm glad that we are continuing with this patch. I'm working on your comment

Re: Proposed fix for Bug #15259 (invalid empty array returned by intarray "&" operator)

Alexey Kryuchkov writes: > The attached patch fixes Bug #15259 [1] in the intarray module, making the > '&' array intersection operator return proper zero-dimensional empty arrays > instead of one-dimensional, zero-length "empty" arrays. LGTM, pushed. Thanks for the report and patch!

Re: WAL prefetch

Hi, On 2018-07-09 11:59:06 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > * During the design phase, I looked into using bgworkers but given the > > number of > >in-flight pread(2) calls required to fully utilize the IO subsystem, I > > opted > >for something threaded (I was also confined to using Solar

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

Hi, On 2018-07-09 05:47:56 -0500, Nico Williams wrote: > Suppose I have my own patches, not yet contributed to PG, and that I'm > using them in production. Can I use my patched version of PG with your > functionality? Yes. Given the proposal was to license the potentially encumbered code under

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] kNN for SP-GiST

Hi! > 4 июля 2018 г., в 3:21, Nikita Glukhov написал(а): > Attached 5th version of the patches, where minor refactoring of distance > handling was done (see below). > I'm reviewing this patch. Currently I'm trying to understand sp-gist scan deeeper, but as for now have some small notices. F

Re: [PATCH] btree_gist: fix union implementation for variable length columns

Pavel Raiskup writes: > while I tried to debug 'gcc -fstack-protector -O3' problems in [1], I noticed > that gbt_var_union() mistreats the first vector element. Patch is attached. Hi Pavel! For patches that purport to resolve bugs, we usually like to add a regression test case that demonstrates

Re: Locking B-tree leafs immediately in exclusive mode

On 9 July 2018 at 04:18, Imai, Yoshikazu wrote: >> # script_ordered.sql >> INSERT INTO ordered (value) VALUES ('abcdefghijklmnoprsqtuvwxyz'); >> >> # script_unordered.sql >> \set i random(1, 100) >> INSERT INTO unordered VALUES (:i, 'abcdefghijklmnoprsqtuvwxyz'); >> # results >> ordered, ma

Re: Locking B-tree leafs immediately in exclusive mode

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 9:43 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > In this case it also looks like we observed 1% regression. Despite 1% > may seem to be very small, I think we should clarify whether it really > exists. I have at least two hypothesis about this. > > 1) There is no real regression, obse

Re: Locking B-tree leafs immediately in exclusive mode

Hi! On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:19 AM Imai, Yoshikazu wrote: > Hi, I'm reviewing this. Great. Thank you for giving attention to this patch. > Firstly, I did performance tests on 72-cores machines(AWS c5.18xlarge) same > as you did. OK. But not that c5.18xlarge is 72-VCPU machine, which AFAIK i

Re: Changing WAL Header to reduce contention during ReserveXLogInsertLocation()

On 09/07/18 18:57, Simon Riggs wrote: On 9 July 2018 at 14:49, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: I'll mark this as "returned with feedback" in the commitfest. The way forward is to test if we can get the same performance benefit from switching to CMPXCHG16B, and keep the WAL format unchanged. If not, t

Re: Changing WAL Header to reduce contention during ReserveXLogInsertLocation()

On 9 July 2018 at 14:49, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 03/04/18 19:20, Andres Freund wrote: >> >> On 2018-04-03 09:56:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> >>> Heikki Linnakangas writes: But let's go back to why we're considering this. The idea was to optimize this block: ... On

Re: cannot restore schema with is not distinct from on hstore since PG 9.6.8

Marc Cousin writes: > This is a really simple test case, I think it's an unintended > consequence of CVE-2018-1058: > demo=# create extension hstore; > CREATE EXTENSION > demo=# create table test (a hstore); > CREATE TABLE > demo=# create index idx_test_not_distinct on test(a) where a is not > di

Re: add default parallel query to v10 release notes? (Re: [PERFORM] performance drop after upgrade (9.6 > 10))

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 02:53:36PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 8:43 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 08:00:25PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > > > So I did some research on this, particularly to find out how it was > > missed in the PG 10 release notes.

Re: [GSoC] working status

yes, my CI test version is 9.4. will make it work on 10 by following your advices. Thanks. On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 5:22 AM Aleksander Alekseeev wrote: > Hello Charles, > > > > ``` > > > pg_thrift.c:1313:26: error: too few arguments to function > > > ‘array_create_iterator’ ArrayIterator iter = > >

Re: Postgres 11 release notes

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:36:30AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 10:28:15PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2018-07-09 14:18:14 +0900, Tatsuro Yamada wrote: > > > Hi Bruce, > > > > > > > I expect a torrent of feedback.;-) > > > > > > Could you add this fix to the releas

Re: Postgres 11 release notes

On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 10:28:15PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-07-09 14:18:14 +0900, Tatsuro Yamada wrote: > > Hi Bruce, > > > > > I expect a torrent of feedback.;-) > > > > Could you add this fix to the release note because this change affects > > an extension developer using the hook

Re: New function pg_stat_statements_reset_query() to reset statistics of a specific query

On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 3:22 AM Fujii Masao wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 7:12 PM, Haribabu Kommi >> wrote: >> > >> > Update patch attached. >> >> + if (userid != 0 && dbid != 0 && queryid != 0) >> >> UINT64CONST() should be used fo

LLVM jit and matview

Hi, I've found out an interesting problem that you can reproduce by running installcheck against a database with enabled llvm jit (with and without the patch I've sent in [1]): # postgresql.conf jit = on jit_above_cost = 0 jit_optimize_above_cost = 0 jit_inline_above_cost = 0 # matview.sql ... =

Re: Changing WAL Header to reduce contention during ReserveXLogInsertLocation()

On 03/04/18 19:20, Andres Freund wrote: On 2018-04-03 09:56:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas writes: But let's go back to why we're considering this. The idea was to optimize this block: ... One trick that we could do is to replace that with a 128-bit atomic compare-and-swap instru

Re: Simplify final sync in pg_rewind's target folder and add --no-sync

On 25/03/18 15:26, Michael Paquier wrote: Hi all, While looking at pg_rewind code, I have been surprised to find that the final fsync done on the target's data folder is done using initdb -S via a system() call. This is in my opinion overcomplicated because we have a dedicated API in fe_utils a

Re: EXPLAIN of Parallel Append

Hi Amit, On 07/07/2018 01:08 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Jesper Pedersen Parallel Append's ntuples is 1, but given nloops is 3 you end up with the slightly confusing "(actual ... *rows=0* loops=3)". The number of rows displayed is total_rows / loops due to which y

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: full merge join on comparison clause

On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 6:31 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > > I will continue reviewing the patches. > Here are some more review comments - * sort ordering for each merge key. The mergejoinable operator is an - * equality operator in the opfamily, and the two inputs are guaranteed to be + * sort or

Re: [HACKERS] WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors

Hello Marina, v9-0004-Pgbench-errors-and-serialization-deadlock-retries.patch - the main patch for handling client errors and repetition of transactions with serialization/deadlock failures (see the detailed description in the file). Here is a review for the last part of your v9 version.

Re: How to set array element to null value

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 03:28:45PM +0530, Brahmam Eswar wrote: > I'm trying to reset array element to null. You can do this in SQL as follows: SELECT ARRAY( SELECT CASE e WHEN 'ABC' THEN NULL ELSE e FROM UNNEST(x) _(e) ) This should really be going to pgsql-general because to is about ho

Oops... Re: Un peu décu : Re: Performance regression with PostgreSQL 11 and partitioning

Oops, that message was supposed to be in private. Sorry for the noise. -- Christophe Courtois

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

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:29:08AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: David Fetter [mailto:da...@fetter.org] > > We went out of our way to excise code that the PostgreSQL license > > doesn't cover some years back. I think that was done for good > > reasons, which obtain to this day. While th

Un peu décu : Re: Performance regression with PostgreSQL 11 and partitioning

Hello, J'ai eu peur, 7d872c91a3f9d49b56117557cdbb0c3d4c620687 n'est pas en bêta 2 mais bien dans REL_11_STABLE. J'ai relancé mes scripts avec 1 partitions vides, un peu à l'arrache et sans rigueur : la dernière version incluant ce patch est effectivement souvent moitié plus rapide qu'en 10, m

Re: missing toast table for pg_policy

On 15.06.18 21:15, Joe Conway wrote: > Not surprising -- thanks for the update. > >> It occurred to be that we could go further and create most toast >> tables automatically by taking advantage of the fact that the toast >> creation function is a no-op if there are no varlena attributes. The >> se

Re: [GSoC] working status

Hello Charles, > > ``` > > pg_thrift.c:1313:26: error: too few arguments to function > > ‘array_create_iterator’ ArrayIterator iter = > > array_create_iterator(parray, 0); ^ > > In file included from pg_thrift.c:5: > > .../postgresql-install/include/server/utils/array.h:418:22

Re: [GSoC] working status

Hello Charles, > ``` > pg_thrift.c:1313:26: error: too few arguments to function > ‘array_create_iterator’ ArrayIterator iter = > array_create_iterator(parray, 0); ^ > In file included from pg_thrift.c:5: > .../postgresql-install/include/server/utils/array.h:418:22: > note: dec

Re: [GSoC] working status

Hello Charles, >The second review is coming. Here is my working status so far. 1. > Complete the thrift compact protocol implementation using bytea > interface. 2. Thrift type (binary protocol) is almost done, the only > remaining part is struct encoding and decoding. With the thrift type, > y

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

> > I don't have any numbers right now, so that is nothing but a concern. But as > I said in a previous email, in the approach I proposed, we don't need to > spend extra cycles where partitioning is not involved. I think that is a > good thing in itself. No? At the cost of having targetlist bein

Re: Concurrency bug in UPDATE of partition-key

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Amit Khandekar wrote: > On 30 June 2018 at 19:20, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:22 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: >>> I was a bit surprised by the new epqslot output argument being added, >>> and now I think I know why: we already have es_trig_tu

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

(2018/07/09 20:06), Ashutosh Bapat wrote: On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: As I said, we do spend cycles in that function testing whether a node is Aggref or not even when the query doesn't have aggregates or grouping OR spend cycles in testing whether a node is a PlaceHold

Re: Generating partitioning tuple conversion maps faster

On 07/09/2018 10:13 AM, David Rowley wrote: I've attached v5. v5 looks good to me, I've changed the status to ready. Please feel free to add yourself as an author of this patch in the commitfest app. You've probably contributed about as much as I have to this. Thanks, I'm fine with being cr

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

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:29:08AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > > There are arguments made that TPL (and BSD, MIT etc) already includes an > > implicit patent grant, but while a longstanding theory, it's to my > > knowledge not legally been tested. > > When we find a reasonable consensus he

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

On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 10:20:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > It's entirely possible to dual license contributions and everything. Why > are you making such aggressive statements about a, so far, apparently > good faith engagement? One problem is that many contributors would not want to be tain

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

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: >> >> >> As I said, we do spend cycles in that function testing whether a node >> is Aggref or not even when the query doesn't have aggregates or >> grouping OR spend cycles in testing whether a node is a PlaceHolderVar >> when the query doesn't

Re: [HACKERS] Another oddity in handling of WCO constraints in postgres_fdw

(2018/07/09 9:00), Jeff Davis wrote: Committed. I made some small modifications and added a test for the case where the foreign table is a partition of a local table, which follows a different code path after commit 3d956d95. Great! Thanks for revising and committing, Jeff. Thanks for review

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

(2018/07/06 20:20), Ashutosh Bapat wrote: On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: (2018/07/04 21:37), Ashutosh Bapat wrote: On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 5:36 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: Let me explain about that: 1) my patch won't apply that function to a child if its top parent is

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

On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 01:15:15AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: Craig Ringer [mailto:cr...@2ndquadrant.com] > > I'm assuming you don't want to offer a grant that lets anyone use them for > > anything. But if you have a really broad grant to PostgreSQL, all someone > > would have to do

Re: How to set array element to null value

2018-07-09 11:58 GMT+02:00 Brahmam Eswar : > I'm trying to reset array element to null. but 3rd line of below snippet > is giving the compilation error. > > > FOR indx_1 IN array_lower(X, 1)..array_upper(X, 1) LOOP > IF X[indx_1].REFERENCE_VALUE = 'ABC' THEN > X[indx_1].REFERENCE_VALUE:=''; > END

Allowing multiple DDL commands to run simultaneously

We use the word CONCURRENTLY to describe DDL that executes without preventing select, insert, update or delete against a table. That is not the topic discussed here. I've been asked if we could consider allowing more types of DDL to run at the same time as each other. Specifically, that all/most o

  1   2   >