Re: [HACKERS] Update comments in nodeModifyTable.c

2017-06-06 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:45 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > While working on [1], I noticed that the comment in ExecModifyTable: > > * Foreign table updates have a wholerow attribute when the > * relation has an AFTER ROW trigger. > > is

Re: [HACKERS] Minor fix for EventCacheLookup()

2017-06-06 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > It should return NIL when no entry is found in the cache, not NULL. > > Attached patch fixes that. I'm not sure how much value neatnik-ism has in cases like this, but committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB:

Re: [HACKERS] sketchy partcollation handling

2017-06-06 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > I think we can call it a bug of StorePartitionKey(). I looked at the > similar code in index_create() (which actually I had originally looked at > for reference when writing the partitioning code in question)

Re: [HACKERS] Extra Vietnamese unaccent rules

2017-06-06 Thread Dang Minh Huong
On Jun 4, 29 Heisei, at 00:48, Bruce Momjian wrote:On Sun, Jun  4, 2017 at 12:43:17AM +0900, Dang Minh Huong wrote:On May 30, 29 Heisei, at 00:22, Dang Minh Huong wrote:On May 29, 29 Heisei, at 10:47, Thomas Munro

Re: [HACKERS] question about replication docs

2017-06-06 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 5/29/17 09:11, Dave Cramer wrote: > The following makes an explicit reference to the simple query protocol > being the only protocol allowed in walsender mode. It is my > understanding this is true for logical replication as well ?? It's the same thing (for this purpose). -- Peter Eisentraut

Re: [HACKERS] Use of non-restart-safe storage by temp_tablespaces

2017-06-06 Thread Sven R. Kunze
On 06.06.2017 14:31, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 04:39:50AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I was thinking that you could create the init fork for each unlogged table in a permanent tablespace (probably the default one for the database). FWIW I don't think calling these

Re: [HACKERS] Index created in BEFORE trigger not updated during INSERT

2017-06-06 Thread Albe Laurenz
Tom Lane wrote: >> Andres Freund writes: >>> Hm, strategically sprinkled CheckTableNotInUse() might do the trick? > > Attached is a proposed patch that closes off this problem. I've tested > it to the extent that it blocks Albe's example and passes check-world. I tested it,

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

2017-06-06 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 09:05:03AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/6/17 08:29, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 06:00:54PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > >> Tom's point is, I think, that we'll want to stay pg_upgrade > >> compatible. So when we see a pg10 tuple and want to add

Re: [HACKERS] inconsistent application_name use in logical workers

2017-06-06 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 6/6/17 06:51, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 06/06/17 04:19, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> The logical replication code is supposed to use the subscription name as >> the fallback_application_name, but in some cases it uses the slot name, >> which could be different. See attached patch to correct this.

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

2017-06-06 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 6/6/17 08:29, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 06:00:54PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: >> Tom's point is, I think, that we'll want to stay pg_upgrade >> compatible. So when we see a pg10 tuple and want to add a new page >> with a new page header that has an epoch, but the whole page

Re: [HACKERS] Use of non-restart-safe storage by temp_tablespaces

2017-06-06 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 6/6/17 03:39, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > FWIW I don't think calling these tablespaces "temporary" is the right > word. It's not the tablespaces that are temporary. The SQL standard meaning of temporary is that the content goes away. It is only in PostgreSQL that it also means that the object

Re: [HACKERS] Use of non-restart-safe storage by temp_tablespaces

2017-06-06 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 04:39:50AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Andres Freund wrote: > > > FWIW, allowing UNLOGGED tables, rather than just TEMPORARY ones, > > increases the complexity of that project noticeably. For TEMPORARY you > > basically don't need to do much but to recreate the

Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256

2017-06-06 Thread Stephen Frost
Michael, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Michael Paquier > > wrote: > >> It seems to me that any testing in this area won't fly high

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

2017-06-06 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 06:00:54PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 6 June 2017 at 12:38, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> In my mind the harder problem is where to find another 32 bits for the

Re: [HACKERS] inconsistent application_name use in logical workers

2017-06-06 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 06/06/17 04:19, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > The logical replication code is supposed to use the subscription name as > the fallback_application_name, but in some cases it uses the slot name, > which could be different. See attached patch to correct this. > Hmm, well the differentiation has a

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.

2017-06-06 Thread Rafia Sabih
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > Many of these seem worse, like these ones: > > - * Quit if we've reached records for another database. Unless the > + * Quit if we've reached records of another database. Unless the > Why is it worse?

Re: [HACKERS] Is ECPG's SET CONNECTION really not thread-aware?

2017-06-06 Thread Michael Meskes
Dear Tsunakawa-san, sorry for the late reply, I've been traveling all of last week and only just came back. >> What does this mean by "not thread-aware?" Does SET CONNECTION in one >> thread change the current connection in another thread? >> It doesn't look so, because the connection

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.

2017-06-06 Thread Neha Sharma
Hi, I have been testing this feature for a while and below are the observations for few scenarios. *Observation:* scenario 1: If we set pg_prewarm.dump_interval = -1.0,we get an additional warning message in logfile and instead of ending the task of auto-dump it executes successfully.

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

2017-06-06 Thread Craig Ringer
On 6 June 2017 at 12:38, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Ashutosh Bapat writes: >>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-06-06 Thread Dilip Kumar
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > Consider an example using the partition hierarchy: > > root (a int, b char, c int) partition by range (a) > > -> level1 from (1) to (10) partition by list (b) > > -> level2 in ('a') parition by range (c) >

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-06-06 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/06/06 17:50, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:03 PM, amul sul wrote: >> May I ask you, how you sure about 8 is an unfit value for t1 relation? >> And what if the value other than 8, for e.g. 7? > > Well, First I created t1 as a leaf relation like below,

Re: [HACKERS] Get stuck when dropping a subscription during synchronizing table

2017-06-06 Thread Masahiko Sawada
On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/2/17 14:52, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 5/24/17 15:14, Petr Jelinek wrote: >>> All the locking works just fine the way it is in master. The issue with >>> deadlock with apply comes from the wrong

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-06-06 Thread Dilip Kumar
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:03 PM, amul sul wrote: > May I ask you, how you sure about 8 is an unfit value for t1 relation? > And what if the value other than 8, for e.g. 7? Well, First I created t1 as a leaf relation like below, and I tested insert into t1 with value 8 and it

[HACKERS] Fix tab-completion of ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET PUBLICATION

2017-06-06 Thread Masahiko Sawada
Hi, Attached patch for $subject. With this patch, ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET PUBLICATION [TAB] completes with "REFRESH" and "SKIP REFRESH". Specifying either REFRESH or SKIP REFRESH is mandatory after ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET PUBLICATION, so i think it's good to add this. Regards, -- Masahiko

Re: [HACKERS] Use of non-restart-safe storage by temp_tablespaces

2017-06-06 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Andres Freund wrote: > FWIW, allowing UNLOGGED tables, rather than just TEMPORARY ones, > increases the complexity of that project noticeably. For TEMPORARY you > basically don't need to do much but to recreate the structure inside the > tablespace at start - fairly simple. But for UNLOGGED you

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

2017-06-06 Thread amul sul
Hi Dilip, Thanks for review. On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:59 AM, amul sul wrote: >> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:23 PM, amul sul wrote: >>> >>> Updated patch attached. Thanks a lot for

Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256

2017-06-06 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > I don't have any issue with asking that Michael, or someone, to go look > at other OpenSSL-using implementations which support channel binding. I don't see the implementation of other TLS/SSL as a requirement for channel

Re: [HACKERS] Default Partition for Range

2017-06-06 Thread Beena Emerson
Hello Dilip, On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:44 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Beena Emerson wrote: >> The new patch is rebased over default_partition_v18.patch >>

Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256

2017-06-06 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> It seems to me that any testing in this area won't fly high as long as >> there is no way to enforce the list of TLS implementations

<    1   2