Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On 4/9/18 11:56 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > Thank you very much for your efforts on reviewing this patch. > I'm looking forward work with you on this feature for PG12. Since there's a new patch I have changed the status to Needs Review and moved the entry to the next CF. Still, it seems

Re: [HACKERS] Replication status in logical replication

On 4/10/18 6:14 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 5:37 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 2:16 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> On 16 January 2018 at 06:21, Michael Paquier >>> wrote: On

Re: Reopen logfile on SIGHUP

Hi Anastasia, On 3/28/18 1:46 PM, David Steele wrote: > On 2/27/18 8:54 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 05:52:20PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >>> It already does treat SIGUSR1 as a log rotation request. Apparently >>> the point of this patch is

Re: jsonpath

On 3/27/18 11:13 AM, Nikita Glukhov wrote: > > Attached 14th version of the patches: It appears this entry should be marked Needs Review, so I have done that and moved it to the next CF. Regards, -- -David da...@pgmasters.net

Re: [PATCH][PROPOSAL] Refuse setting toast.* reloptions when TOAST table does not exist

On 4/10/18 9:17 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > >> But I need some confirmation, in order not to write patch in vain again :-) > > Don't worry, rest assured that you will still write *many* patches in > vain, not just this one. Despite the rather dubious pep talk, Álvaro is

Re: [PATCH] Add missing type conversion functions for PL/Python

On 3/26/18 12:07 PM, Nikita Glukhov wrote: > On 26.03.2018 17:19, David Steele wrote: > >> On 2/20/18 10:14 AM, Haozhou Wang wrote: >>> Thank you very much for your review! >>> >>> I attached a new patch with typo fixed. >> I think it's a bit pre

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping

Hi Jeevan, On 4/2/18 10:57 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Jeevan Chalke > wrote: >> Yep, I see the risk. > > Committed 0001 last week and 0002 just now. I don't really see 0003 a > a critical need. If somebody demonstrates that this

2018-03 CF Cleanup

Hackers, I have gone through all the remaining non-bug entries in CF 2018-03 and pushed them or closed them as appropriate. The majority of the patches were in Needs Review or Ready for Committer status and I did a brief review of each to be sure the state was reasonable. I moved a few Waiting

Re: [PATCH][PROPOSAL] Refuse setting toast.* reloptions when TOAST table does not exist

On 1/25/18 12:27 PM, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > В письме от 25 января 2018 11:29:34 пользователь Tom Lane написал: >> Alvaro Herrera writes: >>> Tom Lane wrote: Well, maybe the right answer is to address that. It's clear to me why that would happen if we store

Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: Foreign Key Arrays

Hi Mark, On 3/26/18 4:50 PM, Mark Rofail wrote: > On 3/7/18 5:43 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > I searched for the new GIN operator so that I > could brush it up for commit ahead of the rest -- only to find out that > it was eviscerated from the patch between v5 and v5.1. > > The

Re: 2018-03 CF Cleanup

On 4/10/18 11:24 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > David Steele wrote: > >> For the moment I have left all bugs in the 2018-03 CF. I can can add >> them to the "Older Bugs" section of the PG 11 Open Items but I'm not >> convinced that is the best way to track them. I

Re: pgsql: Validate page level checksums in base backups

On 4/10/18 5:24 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: I think there's a bug in sendFile(). We do check checksums on all pages that pass this LSN check: /* * Only check pages which have not been modified since the * start of the base backup. Otherwise, they might have been * written

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

Hi Michael, On 4/5/18 2:55 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 08:03:54PM -0400, David Steele wrote: > >> Instead I have created variables in file_perm.c >> that hold the current file create mode, dir create mode, and mode mask. >> All call sites

Re: [PATCH] Add missing type conversion functions for PL/Python

On 4/11/18 2:36 AM, Haozhou Wang wrote: > > Thanks for your email. > Just wondering will I need to re-submit this patch? No need to resubmit, the CF entry has been moved here: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/18/1499/ You should have a look at Nikita's patch, though. Regards, -- -David

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

Hi Stephen, On 4/6/18 10:22 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net) wrote: >> On 4/6/18 6:04 PM, David Steele wrote: >>> On 4/6/18 3:02 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >>>> >>>> - Further discussion in the commit messages >>

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 4/7/18 5:49 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net) wrote: >> >> OK, one last review. I did't make any code changes, but I improved some >> comments, added documentation and fixed a test. > > Thanks! I took those and then added a bit more co

Re: pgsql: New files for MERGE

On 4/11/18 5:28 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 11 April 2018 at 21:00, Simon Riggs wrote: > >> "Commence primary ignition." > > Revert patch attached > > Mostly Pavan, minor cleanup by me I have moved this entry to the next CF in Waiting for Author state. Regards, --

Re: Rangejoin rebased

On 3/2/18 11:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Alexander Kuzmenkov > wrote: >> On 16.01.2018 10:49, Jeff Davis wrote: >>> My proposed fix is to make an internal opfamily identical to the >>> external one, such that it's not recognized as part

Re: Sample values for pg_stat_statements

On 3/21/18 1:31 PM, David Steele wrote: > > On 3/10/18 9:02 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> >> I've looked at this patch today. I like the idea / intent in general, as >> it helps with some investigation tasks. That being said, I have a couple >> of questions/comments b

Re: Reopen logfile on SIGHUP

On 2/27/18 8:54 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 05:52:20PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> It already does treat SIGUSR1 as a log rotation request. Apparently >> the point of this patch is that some people don't find that easy enough >> to use, which is fair, because finding out

Re: Rangejoin rebased

On 3/28/18 2:23 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-03-28 14:18:42 -0400, David Steele wrote: >> It seems that a new patch is needed here but none has been presented. >> I've marked this Waiting on Author for the moment, but I really think it >> should be marked Returned with F

Re: Function to track shmem reinit time

On 3/4/18 11:17 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > Furthermore, the patch is yet another victim of fd1a421fe - fixing the > pg_proc entries is trivial, but a new version is needed. > > I'd also like to see an example/explanation how this improves this > situation compared to only having

Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers

On 2/27/18 2:21 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > Hmm, although I've thought concern in case where we don't consider > local xids of un-resolved fdwxact in GetOldestXmin, I could not find > problem. Could you share your concern if you have? I'll try to find a > possibility based on it. It appears

Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v12

On 3/28/18 6:09 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2018-03-28 18:06:24 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 3/28/18 17:27, Andres Freund wrote: I've pushed these three. Great, now the only thing remaining is to prepare an unconference session explaining all this to the rest of us. ;-) Hah! Happy

Re: pgsql: Add documentation for the JIT feature.

On 3/29/18 3:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > There's an entire section explaining what JIT is and what we currently > can JIT. We can't just say "compiling of routines (also ...)", because > a) we don't do that. b) even if you take expressions being JIT compiled > as that, we also JIT compile

Re: Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: Foreign Key Arrays

On 3/7/18 5:43 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > At this point I'm not sure what to do with this patch. It needs a lot > of further work, for which I don't have time now, and given the pressure > we're under I think we should punt it to the next dev cycle. > > Here's a rebased pgindented version.

Re: Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

On 3/26/18 6:10 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > So, as I get you're proposing to introduce INDEX_ALT_TID_MASK flag > which would indicate that we're storing something special in the t_tid > offset.  And that should help us not only for covering indexes, but also for > further btree enhancements

Re: PATCH: Exclude temp relations from base backup

On 3/26/18 1:06 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Teodor Sigaev (teo...@sigaev.ru) wrote: >> Will autovacuum (or something else) complain about absense of relfile during >> orphan table deleting? I mean, you get a base backup without temp tables, >> then you try to run postgres on it and will it

Re: Re: [PATCH] Add missing type conversion functions for PL/Python

On 2/20/18 10:14 AM, Haozhou Wang wrote: > Thank you very much for your review! > > I attached a new patch with typo fixed. I think it's a bit premature to mark this Ready for Committer after a review consisting of a few typos. Anthony only said that he started looking at it so I've marked it

Re: pgsql: Validate page level checksums in base backups

On 4/3/18 4:48 PM, Michael Banck wrote: Attached is a patch which does that hopefully: 1. creates two user tables, one large enough for at least 6 blocks (around 360kb), the other just one block. 2. stops the cluster before scribbling over its data and starts it afterwards. 3. uses the

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 3/29/18 11:04 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 10:59:59AM -0400, David Steele wrote: >> On 3/28/18 1:59 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >>> In pg_backup_tar.c, we still have a 0600 hardcoded. You should use >>> PG_FILE_MODE_DEFAULT there as w

Re: [PATCH] Verify Checksums during Basebackups

On 3/24/18 10:32 AM, Michael Banck wrote: > Am Freitag, den 23.03.2018, 17:43 +0100 schrieb Michael Banck: >> Am Freitag, den 23.03.2018, 10:54 -0400 schrieb David Steele: >>> In my experience actual block errors are relatively rare, so there >>> aren't likely to b

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 3/20/18 11:14 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 05:44:22PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: >> * David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net) wrote: >>> On 3/16/18 11:12 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> It seems to me that pg_basebackup and pg_receivexlog should have

Re: [HACKERS] Pluggable storage

On 3/28/18 8:39 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:23:56PM -0400, David Steele wrote: >> I think this entry should be moved the the next CF. I'll do that >> tomorrow unless there are objections. > > Instead of moving things to the next CF by default, pe

Re: [HACKERS] Pluggable storage

On 2/26/18 3:19 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 2:20 AM, Robert Haas > wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 5:56 AM, Alexander Korotkov > > wrote: >

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 3/28/18 1:59 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 04:21:09PM -0400, David Steele wrote: >> These updates address Michael's latest review and implement group access >> for pg_basebackup, pg_receivewal, and pg_recvlogical. A new internal >> GUC, data_d

Re: pgsql: Add documentation for the JIT feature.

On 3/29/18 9:51 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings Tom, all, > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> Alvaro Herrera writes: >>> Simon Riggs wrote: JIT means Just In Time, which could be applied to many concepts and has been in use for many years in a

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 3/15/18 3:17 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 02:08:19PM -0400, David Steele wrote: > > When taking a base backup from a data folder which has group access, > then the tar data, as well as the untar'ed data, are still using > 0600 as umask for files and 0

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 3/16/18 11:12 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >>> Visibly there would be no need for a -g switch in >>> pg_basebackup as it is possible to guess from the received untar'ed >>> files what should be the permissions of the data based on what is >>> received in pg_basebackup.c. It would also be

Re: Re: ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN fast default

On 3/15/18 4:33 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > rebased and mostly indented patch version attached. It's actually > moderately difficult to produce a nicely indented patch that is > against non-pgindented code. We should look at that a bit. Another > item for my TODO list. It looks like this should

Re: Boolean partitions syntax

On 3/21/18 10:59 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2018/03/21 23:31, David Steele wrote: >> Hi Amit, >> >> On 3/6/18 9:44 AM, David Steele wrote: >>> On 3/2/18 2:27 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >>>> On 2018/03/02 15:58, Andres Freund wrote: >>>>> O

Re: [PATCH] Verify Checksums during Basebackups

Hi Michael, On 3/17/18 5:34 PM, Michael Banck wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 10:35:33PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > I think most people (including those I had off-list discussions about > this with) were of the opinion that such an option should be there, so I > added an additional

Re: Re: Sample values for pg_stat_statements

Hi Vik, On 3/10/18 9:02 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > I've looked at this patch today. I like the idea / intent in general, as > it helps with some investigation tasks. That being said, I have a couple > of questions/comments based on read through the patch: It looks like there are some privacy

Re: Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries

On 3/15/18 1:12 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > At Mon, 12 Mar 2018 17:34:08 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote in > > The attached is the patch set including this plancache stuff. > > 0001- catcache time-based expiration (The origin of this

Re: Re: csv format for psql

Hi Daniel, On 3/10/18 1:49 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > >>> recordsep in the unaligned mode doesn't play the role of a line ending >>> because the last line is not finished by recordsep. According to the >>> source >>> code, this is intended, see print_unaligned_text() in print.c: >> >> Something

Re: Re: Re: reorganizing partitioning code

Hi Amit, On 3/2/18 11:17 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:53 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >> Hi Amit, >> >> On 2/16/18 3:36 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >>> >>> Attached updated version. >> >>

Re: Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take two

On 3/6/18 4:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> On 3/4/18 16:09, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>> If you want to do this soon I can put out a Buildfarm Client release >>> fairly quickly. > >> I think the dependency is mostly the other way around. How

Re: Re: new function for tsquery creartion

Hi Victor, On 3/5/18 7:52 AM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > It seems that this patch doesn't apply anymore, see > http://commitfest.cputube.org/ > > The new status of this patch is: Waiting on Author This patch needs a rebase and should address the comments from Aleksander and Andres. We are

Re: [PATCH] Verify Checksums during Basebackups

Hi Michael, On 3/23/18 5:36 AM, Michael Banck wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 22.03.2018, 12:22 -0400 schrieb David Steele: >> >> +if (phdr->pd_checksum != checksum) >> >> I've attached a patch that adds basic retry functionality. It's not >> terrible efficien

Re: PATCH: Exclude temp relations from base backup

On 3/13/18 12:34 PM, David Steele wrote: > Updated the patch to change die() to BAIL_OUT() and use append_to_file() > as suggested for another test patch. Updated patch now that the unlogged table exclusions have been committed [1]. Thanks, -- -David da...@pgmasters.net [1]

Re: Re: Re: Boolean partitions syntax

Hi Amit, On 3/6/18 9:44 AM, David Steele wrote: > On 3/2/18 2:27 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >> On 2018/03/02 15:58, Andres Freund wrote: >>> On 2018-02-02 17:00:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >>>> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >>>

Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

On 3/23/18 12:14 PM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: > > Thank you, pushed Thank you, Teodor! I'll rebase the temp table exclusion patch and provide an updated patch soon. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

Hi Peter, On 3/23/18 10:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I have committed a basic pg_resetwal test suite as part of another > patch, so please adjust accordingly. > > It looks to me like your pg_resetwal tests contain a bit of useless > copy-and-paste. For example, you are not using use Config,

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

On 3/1/18 3:50 PM, Oleg Bartunov wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:02 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >> >> Any objections to marking this Returned with Feedback? Or, I can move it >> to the next CF as is. > > I think that Returned with Feedbac

Re: PATCH: Unlogged tables re-initialization tests

Hi Thomas, [Also pulling in Michael for Windows knowledge] On 3/1/18 12:27 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:24 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >> These tests were originally included in the exclude unlogged tables >> patch [1

Re: "failed to find parent tuple for heap-only tuple" error as an ERRCODE_DATA_CORRUPTION ereport()

On 12/15/17 5:31 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Commit d70cf811, from 2014, promoted an Assert() within > IndexBuildHeapScan() to a "can't happen" elog() error, in order to > detect when a parent tuple cannot be found for some heap-only tuple -- > if this happens, then it indicates corruption. I

Re: "failed to find parent tuple for heap-only tuple" error as an ERRCODE_DATA_CORRUPTION ereport()

On 3/1/18 2:19 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:15 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >> On 12/15/17 5:31 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >>> Commit d70cf811, from 2014, promoted an Assert() within >>> IndexBuildHeapScan() to a &quo

Re: row filtering for logical replication

Hi, On 3/1/18 4:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-03-01 16:27:11 +0100, Erik Rijkers wrote: >> Very, very useful. I really do hope this patch survives the >> late-arrival-cull. > > FWIW, I don't think it'd be fair or prudent. There's definitely some > issues (see e.g. Craig's reply), and I

Re: row filtering for logical replication

On 3/1/18 6:00 PM, Euler Taveira wrote: 2018-03-01 18:27 GMT-03:00 Andres Freund : FWIW, I don't think it'd be fair or prudent. There's definitely some issues (see e.g. Craig's reply), and I don't see why this patch'd deserve an exemption from the "nontrivial patches

Re: 2018-03 CFM

Hi Aleksander, On 3/2/18 7:18 AM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > >> You do realize we have the actual source database available, I hope? Since >> it's our own system... There is no need to scrape the data back out -- if >> we can just define what kind of reports we want, we can trivially run it on

Re: Re: [HACKERS] VACUUM and ANALYZE disagreeing on what reltuples means

Hi Tomas, On 1/8/18 3:28 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > > On 01/08/2018 08:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Tomas Vondra writes: >>> As I already mentioned, Tom's updated patch is better than what I >>> posted initially, and I agree with his approach to the remaining >>>

Re: Re: [HACKERS] PoC: custom signal handler for extensions

Hello Maksim, On 1/27/18 2:19 PM, Arthur Zakirov wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 02:34:58PM +0300, Maksim Milyutin wrote: > > The patch is applied and build. > >> +/* >> + * UnregisterCustomProcSignal >> + * Release slot of specific custom signal. >> + * >> + * This function have to be

Re: Re: WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors

Hello Marina, On 1/12/18 12:01 PM, Marina Polyakova wrote: >> >> Yep. I'm trying to suggest an incremental path with simple but yet >> quite useful things first. > > This question ("if there's a failure what savepoint we should rollback > to and start the execution again? ...") mostly concerns

Re: Re: BUGFIX: standby disconnect can corrupt serialized reorder buffers

Hi Craig, On 1/21/18 5:45 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 6 January 2018 at 08:28, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > I think this should use ReadDirExtended with an elevel less than ERROR, > and do nothing. > > Why have strcmp(.) and

Re: PATCH: Unlogged tables re-initialization tests

Hi, On 3/1/18 11:59 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 01:12:19PM -0500, David Steele wrote: >> But your point is well-taken. No symlinks are used in this test so it >> *should* work. >> >> Michael, what do you think? > > Perl's symlink() d

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: custom signal handler for extensions

Hi Maksim, On 3/5/18 11:24 AM, Maksim Milyutin wrote: > Hello David, > > > On 05.03.2018 18:50, David Steele wrote: >> Hello Maksim, >> >> On 1/27/18 2:19 PM, Arthur Zakirov wrote: >> >>> Is there actual need in UnregisterCustomProcSignal()

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 2/28/18 2:28 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:52:32PM -0500, David Steele wrote: >> On 1/30/18 3:01 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >>> +command_ok( >>> + ['chmod', "-R", 'g+rX', "$pgdata"], >>> + 'add group per

Re: [HACKERS] Creating backup history files for backups taken from standbys

On 3/5/18 1:06 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 03:41:57PM -0500, David Steele wrote: >> On 3/2/18 1:03 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: >>>> We would talk about two

Re: [PATCH] Verify Checksums during Basebackups

Hi Michael, On 3/5/18 6:36 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Michael Banck (michael.ba...@credativ.de) wrote: > >> So I guess this would have to be sent back via the replication protocol, >> but I don't see an off-hand way to do this easily? > > The final ordinary result set could be extended to

Re: 2018-03 CFM

Hi Magnus, On 3/5/18 4:55 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > I would like to get a list of submitter patches totals vs the total > number of patches they are reviewing.  In the past I have done this by > eyeball. > > I think that's pretty much the part that's available under "reports"

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

Hi Tom, On 3/5/18 5:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> writes: >> On 2/28/18 2:28 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> That's basically a recursive chmod, so chmod_recursive is more adapted? >>> I could imagine that this is useful as well for r

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 3/1/18 11:18 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > Based on my recent lookup at code level for this feature, the patch for > pg_resetwal (which could have been discussed on its own thread as well), > would be fine for commit. The thing could be extended a bit more but > there is nothing opposing

Re: Re: Fwd: [BUGS] pg_trgm word_similarity inconsistencies or bug

Hi Alexander, On 1/4/18 4:25 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > I just found that patch apply is failed according to > commitfest.cputube.org .  I think it's > because I sent only second patch from patchset in last message. > Anyway I resend both patches rebased to

Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg

Hi David, On 12/17/17 9:30 AM, David Rowley wrote: > > I'm going to add this to PG11's final commitfest rather than the > January 'fest as it seems more like a final commitfest type of patch. This patch applies but no longer builds: $ make -C /home/vagrant/test/build <...> cd

Re: Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql - additional extra checks

Hi Pavel, On 1/7/18 3:31 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > There, now it's in the correct Waiting for Author state. :) > > thank you for comments. All should be fixed in attached patch This patch no longer applies (and the conflicts do not look trivial). Can you provide a rebased patch? $ git

Re: Re: Suspicious call of initial_cost_hashjoin()

Hi Antonin, On 12/22/17 6:13 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Antonin Houska wrote: >> try_partial_hashjoin_path() passes constant true to for the parallel_hash >> argument of initial_cost_hashjoin(). Shouldn't it instead pass the >> parallel_hash

Re: Fwd: [BUGS] pg_trgm word_similarity inconsistencies or bug

Hi Alexander, On 3/1/18 4:26 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:05 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net <mailto:da...@pgmasters.net>> wrote: I agree with Teodor (upthread, not quoted here) that the documentation could use some editing. I s

Re: Hash Joins vs. Bloom Filters / take 2

On 3/1/18 6:52 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: On 03/02/2018 12:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On March 1, 2018 3:22:44 PM PST, Tomas Vondra wrote: On 03/01/2018 11:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: Hi, On 2018-02-20 22:23:54 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: So I've decided to

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

Hi Andres, On 3/1/18 9:04 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2018-02-27 15:52:32 -0500, David Steele wrote: Thanks for having a look at the patches. I'd personally appreciate if you'd add commit messages to the individual patches in a series. A brief explanation why something is done is good enough

Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions

Hi Tomas. On 3/1/18 9:33 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: On 03/02/2018 02:12 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2018-02-01 23:51:55 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: On 02/01/2018 03:51 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: To close out this commit fest, I'm setting both of these patches as returned with feedback, as there

Re: [HACKERS] Creating backup history files for backups taken from standbys

On 3/1/18 11:07 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 02:29:13AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> + * write a backup history file with the same name. >> >> So more than one backup history files with the same name >> but the diffferent content can be created and archived. >> Isn't this

Re: 2018-03 CFM

Hi Alexander, On 2/27/18 5:05 AM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: Hello David, Just a few days left until the last Commitfest for the PG11 release begins! I'm planning to fill the CFM role, unless there are objections. Thank you for volunteering! I would like to be CFM assistant, if you need

Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions

On 3/2/18 3:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Tomas Vondra > wrote: >> Ah, apologies - that's due to moving the patch from the last CF (it was >> marked as RWF so I had to reopen it before moving it). I'll submit a new >> version of the

Re: [HACKERS] Creating backup history files for backups taken from standbys

Hi, On 3/2/18 1:03 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> We would talk about two backups running >> simultaneously on a standby, which would overlap with each other to >> generate a file aimed only at being helpful for

Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions

On 3/2/18 8:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-03-03 02:00:46 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> That is somewhat misleading, I think. You're right the last version was >> submitted on 2018-01-19, but the next review arrived on 2018-01-31, i.e. >> right at the end of the CF. So it's not like the

Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions

On 3/2/18 8:54 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 03/03/2018 02:37 AM, David Steele wrote: >> On 3/2/18 8:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >>> On 2018-03-03 02:00:46 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: >>>> That is somewhat misleading, I think. You're right the last version wa

PATCH: Exclude temp relations from base backup

This is a follow-up patch from the exclude unlogged relations discussion [1]. The patch excludes temporary relations during a base backup using the existing looks_like_temp_rel_name() function for identification. It shares code to identify database directories from [1], so for now that has been

Re: Re: reorganizing partitioning code

Hi Amit, On 2/16/18 3:36 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > > Attached updated version. This patch no longer applies and the conflicts do not appear to be trivial. I'm a bit confused about your comment in [1]: > I gave up on rebasing this patch yesterday as I couldn't finish it in > 5 minutes, but

Re: 2018-03 Commitfest Summary (Andres #4)

On 3/2/18 2:52 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Let's do this. Hell, this CF is large. Yeah it is. > I'll have a glass of wine at some point of this. Hope you did! I've gone through all your notes and will follow up on your recommendations where you have not already done so. Thanks, -- -David

Re: 2018-03 Commitfest starts tomorrow

On 3/1/18 4:52 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > The remaining 45 are, ordered by time created: OK, here's my break down after a brief review of all the patches in the list. Many of the patches were trivial/small, bug fixes, had history, or related to builds, tests, or docs. There are still 13

Re: Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization

Hi Konstantin, On 1/12/18 7:53 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > > > On 12.01.2018 03:40, Thomas Munro wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Stephen Frost >> wrote: >>> * Konstantin Knizhnik (k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru) wrote: Updated version of the patch is

Re: ALTER TABLE does not check for column existence before starting operations

Hi Pierre, On 3/2/18 6:36 AM, Pierre Ducroquet wrote: > > While working on a big table recently, I noticed that ALTER TABLE does not > check for column existence in operations like SET NOT NULL before starting > working on the table, for instance adding a primary key. > It is thus possible, if

Re: autovacuum: change priority of the vacuumed tables

On 3/2/18 4:07 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote: > On Thu, 1 Mar 2018 23:39:34 -0800 > Andres Freund wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On 2018-02-19 17:00:34 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: >>> I have a hard time understanding how adding yet another autovacuum >>> table-level knob makes the DBA's

Re: 2018-03 CFM

On 3/5/18 8:33 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:00 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >> I've been using commitfest.cputube.org for reference since the last CF, >> though I'm unsure if it rechecks patches when master changes, so I do >> tha

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 3/5/18 5:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> writes: >> On 3/5/18 5:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> writes: >>>> I'm not sure what the protocol for introducing a new Perl module is? I >>>&

Re: 2018-03 CFM

On 3/5/18 6:06 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 1:18 AM, Aleksander Alekseev >> >> I don't think commitfest.cputube.org has the SQL data on whether patch >> pass the tests. It just displays SVG images from travis-ci.org. Also >> unfortunately both commitfest.postgresql.org and

Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 3/5/18 8:03 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 05:11:29PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> writes: >>> On 2/28/18 2:28 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>>> That's basically a recursive chmod, so chmod_recursive i

Re: More issues with pg_verify_checksums and checksum verification in base backups

On 10/30/18 11:59 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Kyotaro HORIGUCHI (horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: >> >> So I'm +1 for the Michael's current patch as (I think) we can't >> make visible or large changes. >> >> That said, I agree with Stephen's concern on the point we could >> omit

Re: Add timeline to partial WAL segments

On 12/21/18 2:10 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 02:13:01PM +0200, David Steele wrote: Or perhaps just always add the timeline to the .partial? That way it doesn't need to be renamed later. Also, there would be a consistent name, rather than sometimes .partial, sometimes

Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode

On 12/27/18 6:53 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 5:43 PM Robert Haas I think the old CommitFest application let you set the CommitFest via the Edit screen also, so you could pick a specific CommitFest to target.  But that doesn't seem to exist in Magnus's version.

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >