Re: postgres_fdw: oddity in costing aggregate pushdown paths

2019-01-23 Thread Etsuro Fujita
(2019/01/23 20:35), Etsuro Fujita wrote: > Attached is an updated version of the patch. > > Changes: > * Fixed a stupid bug in the case when use_remote_estimate > * Fixed a typo in a comment I added > * Modified comments I added a little bit further > * Added the commit message > > If there are

RE: speeding up planning with partitions

2019-01-23 Thread Imai, Yoshikazu
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 1:35 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > Rebased due to the heap_open/close() -> table_open/close() change. Maybe there are not many things I can point out through reviewing the patch, so I ran the performance test against v17 patches instead of reviewing codes. There are already a

Re: RTLD_GLOBAL (& JIT inlining)

2019-01-23 Thread Tom Lane
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes: > With the attached patch, external modules are loaded RTLD_LOCAL > by default. PG_MODULE_EXPORT_SYMBOL in a module source files let > it loaded RTLD_GLOBAL. I suppose this is the change with the > least impact on existing modules because I believe most of them > don't

Re: RTLD_GLOBAL (& JIT inlining)

2019-01-23 Thread Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Hello. At Mon, 26 Feb 2018 23:50:41 +0200, Ants Aasma wrote in > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:28 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > So RTLD_LOCAL is out of the question, but I think we can get a good bit > > of the benefit by either specifying -Wl,-Bsymbolic at shlib build time, > > or RTLD_DEEPBIND

Re: Thread-unsafe coding in ecpg

2019-01-23 Thread Tom Lane
Oh, I just noticed something else: several of the ecpg test programs contain #ifdef WIN32 #ifdef _MSC_VER/* requires MSVC */ _configthreadlocale(_ENABLE_PER_THREAD_LOCALE); #endif #endif Surely this is a kluge that we could now remove? We've protected the only setlocale

Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables

2019-01-23 Thread Amit Kapila
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 3:39 AM John Naylor wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 6:32 AM Amit Kapila wrote: > > Also, another case to think in this regard is the upgrade for standby > > servers, if you read below paragraph from the user manual [1], you > > will see what I am worried about? > > > >

Re: inherited primary key misbehavior

2019-01-23 Thread Amit Langote
On 2019/01/24 12:03, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2019-Jan-24, Amit Langote wrote: > >> Fixed in the attached. We don't support inheriting EXCLUSION constraints >> yet, so no need to consider their indexes. > > Looks good, pushed. Thank you. Regards, Amit

Re: Thread-unsafe coding in ecpg

2019-01-23 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > This suggests that, rather than throwing up our hands if the initial > _configthreadlocale call returns -1, we should act as though the function > doesn't exist, and just soldier on the same as before. The code in there > assumes that -1 is a can't-happen case and doesn't try to

Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables

2019-01-23 Thread Amit Kapila
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:18 PM John Naylor wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 7:09 AM Amit Kapila wrote: > > I think the first two patches (a) removal of dead code in bootstrap > > and (b) the core patch to avoid creation of FSM file for the small > > table are good now. I have prepared the

Re: Thread-unsafe coding in ecpg

2019-01-23 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 1/23/19 6:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Perhaps there's some sort of setup that MinGW's version needs that >> we're not doing? > This seems to suggest something worse: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40181 > Not sure I fully understand what's happening here, though. Me either,

Re: inherited primary key misbehavior

2019-01-23 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On 2019-Jan-24, Amit Langote wrote: > Fixed in the attached. We don't support inheriting EXCLUSION constraints > yet, so no need to consider their indexes. Looks good, pushed. -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA,

Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum

2019-01-23 Thread Masahiko Sawada
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:59 PM Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > > Thanks for the latest patch. I have some more minor comments. Thank you for reviewing the patch. > > + Execute index vacuum and cleanup index in parallel with > > Better to use vacuum index and cleanup index? This is in same with

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: multivariate histograms and MCV lists

2019-01-23 Thread David Rowley
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 12:46, David Rowley wrote: > (Stopped in statext_mcv_build(). Need to take a break) Continuing... 27. statext_mcv_build() could declare the int j,k variables in the scope that they're required in. 28. "an array" * build array of SortItems for distinct groups and counts

Re: inherited primary key misbehavior

2019-01-23 Thread Amit Langote
On 2019/01/24 6:10, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Hello > > On 2019-Jan-23, Amit Langote wrote: > >> It seems that ATExecDetachPartition misses to mark a child's primary key >> constraint entry (if any) as local (conislocal=true, coninhcount=0), which >> causes this: >> >> create table p (a int

Re: Delay locking partitions during INSERT and UPDATE

2019-01-23 Thread David Rowley
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 13:38, John Naylor wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 4:31 PM David Rowley > wrote: > > Thanks. I've attached a rebased version. > > Hmm, now instead of an 85x speedup over master in the 10k partition > case, I only get 20x. Anyone else see this? What's it like with fsync

Re: Delay locking partitions during INSERT and UPDATE

2019-01-23 Thread John Naylor
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 4:31 PM David Rowley wrote: > Thanks. I've attached a rebased version. Hmm, now instead of an 85x speedup over master in the 10k partition case, I only get 20x. Anyone else see this? -- John Naylorhttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7

Re: Thread-unsafe coding in ecpg

2019-01-23 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 1/23/19 6:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan writes: >> I have just spent a large amount of time testing the committed fix with >> a number of versions of gcc. It blows up on any compiler modern enough >> to know about _configthreadlocale > Bleah. Since the regular Windows buildfarm

Re: pg_dump multi VALUES INSERT

2019-01-23 Thread David Rowley
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 04:45, Fabien COELHO wrote: > I still do not understand the need for another variable. > >int ninserts = 0; // default is to use copy >while (getopt...) >{ > switch (...) { >case "--inserts": > if (ninserts == 0) ninserts = 1; >

Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries

2019-01-23 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 05:35:02PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > At Mon, 21 Jan 2019 17:22:55 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote in > <20190121.172255.226467552.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > > An option is an additional PGPROC member and interface functions. > > >

Re: index_build does not need its isprimary argument

2019-01-23 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 05:08:52PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > While working on REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, I have noticed that > index_build() does not need its argument isprimary. Perhaps it is > not worth bothering, but for the REINDEX CONCURRENTLY business this > removes the need to open an

Re: Thread-unsafe coding in ecpg

2019-01-23 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan writes: > I have just spent a large amount of time testing the committed fix with > a number of versions of gcc. It blows up on any compiler modern enough > to know about _configthreadlocale Bleah. Since the regular Windows buildfarm members seem happy, this evidently means that

Re: Thread-unsafe coding in ecpg

2019-01-23 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 1/22/19 12:50 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 1/21/19 10:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> On 1/21/19 3:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> "Joshua D. Drake" writes: On 1/21/19 12:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Is there a newer version of mingw that does have this functionality? Apparently this

Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables

2019-01-23 Thread John Naylor
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 6:32 AM Amit Kapila wrote: > Also, another case to think in this regard is the upgrade for standby > servers, if you read below paragraph from the user manual [1], you > will see what I am worried about? > > "What this does is to record the links created by pg_upgrade's

Re: problems with foreign keys on partitioned tables

2019-01-23 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On 2019-Jan-22, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2019/01/22 8:30, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Hi Amit, > > > > Will you please rebase 0002? Please add your proposed tests cases to > > it, too. > > Done. See the attached patches for HEAD and PG 11. I'm not quite sure I understand why the one in

Re: inherited primary key misbehavior

2019-01-23 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Hello On 2019-Jan-23, Amit Langote wrote: > It seems that ATExecDetachPartition misses to mark a child's primary key > constraint entry (if any) as local (conislocal=true, coninhcount=0), which > causes this: > > create table p (a int primary key) partition by list (a); > create table p2

Re: Analyze all plans

2019-01-23 Thread Donald Dong
On Jan 23, 2019, at 6:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Oleksandr Shulgin writes: >> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:44 AM Donald Dong wrote: >>> 1. Enumerate all the plans > >> So enumerating all possible plans stops being practical for even slightly >> complicated queries. > > Yes. You can *not*

Re: Non-deterministic IndexTuple toast compression from index_form_tuple() + amcheck false positives

2019-01-23 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 2:37 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote: > The fix here must be to normalize index tuples that are compressed > within amcheck, both during initial fingerprinting, and during > subsequent probes of the Bloom filter in bt_tuple_present_callback(). I happened to talk to Andres about

Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring

2019-01-23 Thread Chapman Flack
On 1/23/19 12:25 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2019-01-23 12:22:23 -0500, Chapman Flack wrote: >> ArchiveEntry(fout, dbCatId, dbDumpId, .tag = datname, .owner = dba, >> .desc = "DATABASE", .section = SECTION_PRE_DATA, >> .defn = creaQry->data, .dropStmt = delQry->data);

Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

2019-01-23 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2019-01-23 13:17:26 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 9:01 PM Vik Fearing > wrote: > > I don't want a situation like this: > > CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY ... > > DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY ... > > REINDEX INDEX (CONCURRENTLY) ... > > > > All three should be the

Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring

2019-01-23 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > Btw, do you have an opionion on keeping catId / dumpId outside/inside > the argument struct? I'd go for outside, since they're not optional. Not dead set on that though. regards, tom lane

Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

2019-01-23 Thread Pavel Stehule
st 23. 1. 2019 19:17 odesílatel Robert Haas napsal: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 9:01 PM Vik Fearing > wrote: > > I don't want a situation like this: > > CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY ... > > DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY ... > > REINDEX INDEX (CONCURRENTLY) ... > > > > All three should be the

Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

2019-01-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 9:01 PM Vik Fearing wrote: > I don't want a situation like this: > CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY ... > DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY ... > REINDEX INDEX (CONCURRENTLY) ... > > All three should be the same, and my suggestion is to add the > parenthesized version to CREATE

Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring

2019-01-23 Thread Andres Freund
On 2019-01-23 12:32:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2019-01-23 13:58:07 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> It does. How does pgindent behave with it? > > > It craps out: > > Error@3649: Unbalanced parens > > Warning@3657: Extra ) > > > But that can be worked around with

Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring

2019-01-23 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > On 2019-01-23 13:58:07 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> It does. How does pgindent behave with it? > It craps out: > Error@3649: Unbalanced parens > Warning@3657: Extra ) > But that can be worked around with something like > te = ArchiveEntry(fout,

Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring

2019-01-23 Thread Andres Freund
On 2019-01-23 13:58:07 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Hello > > On 2019-Jan-23, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > All the arguments, except Archive, CatalogId and DumpId I've moved > > > into the ArchiveOpts structure. Not all of them could be empty before, but > > > anyway it seems better for

Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring

2019-01-23 Thread Chapman Flack
On 1/23/19 12:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2019-01-23 12:05:10 -0500, Chapman Flack wrote: >> [1] https://github.com/NetBSD/src/blob/trunk/sys/sys/midiio.h#L709 > I'm not really seeing this being more than obfuscation in this case. The > only point of the macro is to set the .tag and .op

Re: Referential Integrity Checks with Statement-level Triggers

2019-01-23 Thread Corey Huinker
Attached is a patch that refactors DELETE triggers to fire at the statement level. I chose delete triggers partly out of simplicity, and partly because there some before/after row linkage in the ON UPDATE CASCADE cases where statement level triggers might not be feasible as we have currently

Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring

2019-01-23 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2019-01-23 12:05:10 -0500, Chapman Flack wrote: > On 1/23/19 10:12 AM, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > > To make this discussion a bit more specific, I've created a patch of how > > it can look like. > A little bit of vararg-macro action can make such a design look > even tidier, cf. [1]. > [1]

Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring

2019-01-23 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2019-01-23 13:58:07 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I'd use ArchiveEntryOpts as struct name; ArchiveOpts sounds wrong. Brevity would be of some advantage IMO, because it'll probably determine how pgindent indents the arguments, because the struct name will be in the arguments. > Also,

Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring

2019-01-23 Thread Tom Lane
Chapman Flack writes: > Or are compilers without vararg macros still in the supported mix? No. regards, tom lane

Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring

2019-01-23 Thread Chapman Flack
On 1/23/19 10:12 AM, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > To make this discussion a bit more specific, I've created a patch of how > it can look like. A little bit of vararg-macro action can make such a design look even tidier, cf. [1]. Or are compilers without vararg macros still in the supported mix? -Chap

Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring

2019-01-23 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Hello On 2019-Jan-23, Andres Freund wrote: > > All the arguments, except Archive, CatalogId and DumpId I've moved > > into the ArchiveOpts structure. Not all of them could be empty before, but > > anyway it seems better for consistency and readability. Some of the > > arguments > > had empty

Re: Typo: llvm*.cpp files identified as llvm*.c

2019-01-23 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > On 2019-01-23 12:01:10 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> I am not sure if anybody uses them for anything automatically, still I >> find myself from time to time looking at them to remember on which >> path the file is located when opened in emacs. > I often want to know

Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory

2019-01-23 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2019-01-23 18:45:42 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > To re-iterate what I said earlier in this thread, I think the next step here > is to write a patch that modifies xlog.c to use plain old mmap()/msync() to > memory-map the WAL files, to replace the WAL buffers. Let's see what the >

Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring

2019-01-23 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2019-01-23 16:12:15 +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > To make this discussion a bit more specific, I've created a patch of how it > can > look like. Thanks. > All the arguments, except Archive, CatalogId and DumpId I've moved > into the ArchiveOpts structure. Not all of them could be empty

Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory

2019-01-23 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 10/12/2018 23:37, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:48 PM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote: On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 4:53 AM Michael Paquier wrote: On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 06:00:54PM +0900, Yoshimi Ichiyanagi wrote: The libpmem's pmem_map_file() supported 2M/1G(the

Re: Typo: llvm*.cpp files identified as llvm*.c

2019-01-23 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2019-01-23 12:01:10 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 05:49:46PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2019-01-23 14:43:15 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > >> The function name comments are similar, though less consistent so I'm > >> too lazy to write a script to find one

Re: postgres on a non-journaling filesystem

2019-01-23 Thread Andres Freund
On 2019-01-23 14:20:52 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 23/01/2019 01:03, maayan mordehai wrote: > > hello, > > > > I'm Maayan, I'm in a DBA team that uses postgresql. > > I saw in the documentation on wals: > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/wal-intro.html > > In the tip box that, it's

Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables

2019-01-23 Thread John Naylor
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 7:09 AM Amit Kapila wrote: > I think the first two patches (a) removal of dead code in bootstrap > and (b) the core patch to avoid creation of FSM file for the small > table are good now. I have prepared the patches along with commit > message. There is no change except

Re: pg_dump multi VALUES INSERT

2019-01-23 Thread Fabien COELHO
Hello David, I thought about this and looked into it, but I decided it didn't look like a smart thing to do. The reason is that if --inserts sets dump_inserts to 1 then --rows-per-insert sets it to something else that's likely fine, but if that happens in the opposite order then the

Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring

2019-01-23 Thread Dmitry Dolgov
> On 2019-01-17 09:29:04 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2019-01-17 10:23:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > I don't buy the argument that this would move the goalposts in terms > > of how much work it is to add a new argument. You'd still end up > > touching every call site. > > Why? A lot of

Re: Analyze all plans

2019-01-23 Thread Tom Lane
Oleksandr Shulgin writes: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:44 AM Donald Dong wrote: >> 1. Enumerate all the plans > So enumerating all possible plans stops being practical for even slightly > complicated queries. Yes. You can *not* disable the planner's aggressive pruning of losing paths and

Re: postgres on a non-journaling filesystem

2019-01-23 Thread maayan mordehai
Thank you!! On Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 2:20 PM Heikki Linnakangas On 23/01/2019 01:03, maayan mordehai wrote: > > hello, > > > > I'm Maayan, I'm in a DBA team that uses postgresql. > > I saw in the documentation on wals: > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/wal-intro.html > > In the tip box that,

Re: pg_dump multi VALUES INSERT

2019-01-23 Thread David Rowley
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 22:08, Fabien COELHO wrote: > Out of abc-order rows-per-inserts option in getopt struct. I missed that. Thanks. Fixed in attached. > help string does not specify the expected argument. Also fixed. > I still think that the added rows_per_insert field is useless, ISTM

Re: postgres on a non-journaling filesystem

2019-01-23 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 23/01/2019 01:03, maayan mordehai wrote: hello, I'm Maayan, I'm in a DBA team that uses postgresql. I saw in the documentation on wals: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/wal-intro.html In the tip box that, it's better not to use a journaling filesystem. and I wanted to ask how it works?

Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables

2019-01-23 Thread Amit Kapila
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 5:19 AM John Naylor wrote: > > I have a test for in-range and out-of-range for each relation fork. > I think the first two patches (a) removal of dead code in bootstrap and (b) the core patch to avoid creation of FSM file for the small table are good now. I have prepared

Re: yet another comment typo patch

2019-01-23 Thread Amit Kapila
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 5:28 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > On 23/01/2019 13:51, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 2:18 PM Fabien COELHO wrote: > >> > >> > >> An assorted set of command typos is fixed in the attached patch. > > > > The patch looks good to me. I will take another

Re: yet another comment typo patch

2019-01-23 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 23/01/2019 13:51, Amit Kapila wrote: On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 2:18 PM Fabien COELHO wrote: An assorted set of command typos is fixed in the attached patch. The patch looks good to me. I will take another pass over it and commit. I just committed this. Sorry, I didn't see your mail

Re: yet another comment typo patch

2019-01-23 Thread Amit Kapila
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 2:18 PM Fabien COELHO wrote: > > > An assorted set of command typos is fixed in the attached patch. > The patch looks good to me. I will take another pass over it and commit. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Almost bug in COPY FROM processing of GB18030 encoded input

2019-01-23 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Hi, I happened to notice that when CopyReadLineText() calls mblen(), it passes only the first byte of the multi-byte characters. However, pg_gb18030_mblen() looks at the first and the second byte. CopyReadLineText() always passes \0 as the second byte, so pg_gb18030_mblen() will incorrectly

Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring

2019-01-23 Thread Chris Travers
attached is a new signal handing patch. Path is corrected and moved. The documentation is sightly streamlined in some places and expanded in others. Feedback requested. -- Best Regards, Chris Travers Head of Database Tel: +49 162 9037 210 | Skype: einhverfr | www.adjust.com Saarbrücker Straße

inherited primary key misbehavior

2019-01-23 Thread Amit Langote
Hi, It seems that ATExecDetachPartition misses to mark a child's primary key constraint entry (if any) as local (conislocal=true, coninhcount=0), which causes this: create table p (a int primary key) partition by list (a); create table p2 partition of p for values in (2); alter table p detach

Re: pg_dump multi VALUES INSERT

2019-01-23 Thread Fabien COELHO
Hello David & Surafel, About this v10: Patch applies and compiles cleanly, local & global "make check" ok. A few comments, possibly redundant with some already in the thread. Out of abc-order rows-per-inserts option in getopt struct. help string does not specify the expected argument. I

Re: Analyze all plans

2019-01-23 Thread Oleksandr Shulgin
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:44 AM Donald Dong wrote: > > 1. Enumerate all the plans > Not sure this is going to work. Because of the total number of possible plans is somewhere around O(n!), if I'm not mistaken, in terms of number of joined relations times the available access methods times the

yet another comment typo patch

2019-01-23 Thread Fabien COELHO
An assorted set of command typos is fixed in the attached patch. -- Fabien.diff --git a/contrib/pgcrypto/pgp-decrypt.c b/contrib/pgcrypto/pgp-decrypt.c index 7d31e5354b..96c344c30b 100644 --- a/contrib/pgcrypto/pgp-decrypt.c +++ b/contrib/pgcrypto/pgp-decrypt.c @@ -132,7 +132,7 @@

Analyze all plans

2019-01-23 Thread Donald Dong
Hi, I'm working on an extension which analyzes all possible plans generated by the planner. I believe this extension would become useful for benchmarking the planner (e.g. the performance of the estimation and the cost model) and better understanding the cases where the planners would make a

Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries

2019-01-23 Thread Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
At Mon, 21 Jan 2019 17:22:55 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote in <20190121.172255.226467552.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > An option is an additional PGPROC member and interface functions. > > struct PGPROC > { > ... > int syscahe_usage_track_interval; /* track

Re: pg_dump multi VALUES INSERT

2019-01-23 Thread David Rowley
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 02:13, Surafel Temesgen wrote: > okay .thank you for explaining. i attach a patch corrected as such I did a bit of work to this to fix a bunch of things: 1. Docs for --rows-per-insert didn't mention anything about a parameter. 2. You'd not followed the alphabetical order