Re: [HACKERS] patch: function xmltable

2016-12-02 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hi 2016-12-02 23:25 GMT+01:00 Alvaro Herrera : > Here's version 17. I have made significant changes here. > > 1. Restructure the execQual code. Instead of a PG_TRY wrapper, I have > split this code in three pieces; there's the main code with the PG_TRY > wrappers and

Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless

2016-12-02 Thread Fabien COELHO
Hello, My guess is that something comparable to where pgbench is would be a reasonable target --- not least because I think we should strive to reduce unnecessary differences between psql and pgbench metalanguages. I'm not sure that I'm ready to propose that they should share the same

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes

2016-12-02 Thread Amit Kapila
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> I want to split when the average bucket >>> contains 10 pages worth of tuples. >> >> oh, I think what you mean to say is hack the code to

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel execution and prepared statements

2016-12-02 Thread Amit Kapila
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Tobias Bussmann wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> >>> OK, then my vote is to do it that way for now. > > Thanks for your opinion. That's fine with me. > >> Am 02.12.2016 um 07:22 schrieb

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in _hash_splitbucket_guts

2016-12-02 Thread Amit Kapila
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 2:06 AM, Andreas Seltenreich > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> the new hash index code on 11003eb failed an assertion yesterday: >> >> TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(bucket == obucket)",

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add max_parallel_workers GUC.

2016-12-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Dec 2, 2016, at 5:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jim Nasby writes: >>> On 12/2/16 2:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Signs point to "no". It seemed like a good idea to leave some daylight >>> between max_parallel_workers and max_worker_processes, but

Re: [HACKERS] Tackling JsonPath support

2016-12-02 Thread Christian Convey
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Nico Williams wrote: ... On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 08:53:33AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Christian Convey > > wrote: > > > I think I can satisfy (3) with a PG extension which

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in _hash_splitbucket_guts

2016-12-02 Thread Amit Kapila
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 2:06 AM, Andreas Seltenreich wrote: > Hi, > > the new hash index code on 11003eb failed an assertion yesterday: > > TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(bucket == obucket)", File: "hashpage.c", Line: > 1037) > This can happen if we start new split before

Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless

2016-12-02 Thread Jim Nasby
On 12/2/16 9:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Corey Huinker wrote: In order for me to understand how high the bar has been set, can you (Robert/Tom mostly, but I welcome any responses) explain what you mean by "full-blown expression language"?

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add max_parallel_workers GUC.

2016-12-02 Thread Tom Lane
Jim Nasby writes: > On 12/2/16 2:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Signs point to "no". It seemed like a good idea to leave some daylight >> between max_parallel_workers and max_worker_processes, but evidently this >> wasn't the way to get there. Or else we should just

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add max_parallel_workers GUC.

2016-12-02 Thread Jim Nasby
On 12/2/16 2:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote: Signs point to "no". It seemed like a good idea to leave some daylight between max_parallel_workers and max_worker_processes, but evidently this wasn't the way to get there. Or else we should just give up on that thought. Could the defaults be scaled

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add max_parallel_workers GUC.

2016-12-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Dec 2, 2016, at 4:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> Add max_parallel_workers GUC. >> Increase the default value of the existing max_worker_processes GUC >> from 8 to 16, and add a new max_parallel_workers GUC with a maximum >> of 8. > >

Re: [HACKERS] HaveNFreeProcs() iterates through entire freeProcs list

2016-12-02 Thread Jim Nasby
On 12/2/16 12:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I think you misread it. Note the "n > 0" part of the while condition. *facepalm* Sorry for the noise... -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL Data in Trouble? Get it in

Re: [HACKERS] Tackling JsonPath support

2016-12-02 Thread Nico Williams
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 08:53:33AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Christian Convey > wrote: > > I think I can satisfy (3) with a PG extension which provides a function that > > approximately implements JSONPath. My short-term plans are

Re: [HACKERS] Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique

2016-12-02 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Dec 2, 2016, at 7:47 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: >> Patch still applies fine to HEAD. >> Moved to next CF with "ready for committer" status. > Tom, are you picking this up? Yeah, I apologize for not having gotten to it in

Re: [HACKERS] Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique

2016-12-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Dec 2, 2016, at 7:47 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:21 PM, David Rowley >> wrote: >> On 31 October 2016 at 18:37, David Rowley >> wrote: >> > I've rebased the changes I made to

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add max_parallel_workers GUC.

2016-12-02 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > Add max_parallel_workers GUC. > Increase the default value of the existing max_worker_processes GUC > from 8 to 16, and add a new max_parallel_workers GUC with a maximum > of 8. This broke buildfarm members coypu and sidewinder. It appears the reason

Re: [HACKERS] HaveNFreeProcs() iterates through entire freeProcs list

2016-12-02 Thread Tom Lane
Jim Nasby writes: > Current HaveNFreeProcs() iterates through the entire freeProcs list > (while holding ProcStructLock) just to determine if there's a small > number (superuser_reserved_connections) of free slots available. I think you misread it. Note the "n > 0"

Re: [HACKERS] Radix tree for character conversion

2016-12-02 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 12/02/2016 10:18 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 11/09/2016 10:38 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: Thanks. The attached patch contains the patch by perlcritic. 0001,2,3 are Heikki's patch that are not modified since it is first proposed. It's a bit too big so I don't

Re: [HACKERS] Dynamic shared memory areas

2016-12-02 Thread Thomas Munro
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Thomas Munro >>>

[HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in _hash_splitbucket_guts

2016-12-02 Thread Andreas Seltenreich
Hi, the new hash index code on 11003eb failed an assertion yesterday: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(bucket == obucket)", File: "hashpage.c", Line: 1037) Statement was update public.hash_i4_heap set seqno = public.hash_i4_heap.random; It can be reproduced with the data directory (Debian

[HACKERS] HaveNFreeProcs() iterates through entire freeProcs list

2016-12-02 Thread Jim Nasby
Current HaveNFreeProcs() iterates through the entire freeProcs list (while holding ProcStructLock) just to determine if there's a small number (superuser_reserved_connections) of free slots available. For the common case, presumably it'd be faster to put the n<=0 test inside the loop and

Re: [HACKERS] Radix tree for character conversion

2016-12-02 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 11/09/2016 10:38 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > Thanks. The attached patch contains the patch by perlcritic. > > > > 0001,2,3 are Heikki's patch that are not modified since it is > > first proposed. It's a bit too big so I don't attach them to this > > mail

Re: [HACKERS] Radix tree for character conversion

2016-12-02 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 11/09/2016 10:38 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: Thanks. The attached patch contains the patch by perlcritic. 0001,2,3 are Heikki's patch that are not modified since it is first proposed. It's a bit too big so I don't attach them to this mail (again).

Re: [HACKERS] Wrong order of tests in findDependentObjects()

2016-12-02 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > Jim Nasby writes: >> On 12/1/16 1:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I think that the patch I wrote is good cleanup, so I'm still inclined >>> to apply it in HEAD, but I no longer think it's fixing any case that's >>> significant in the field. I wonder if you have a

Re: [HACKERS] Dynamic shared memory areas

2016-12-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Thomas Munro >> wrote: >>> Please find attached dsa-v8.patch, and also a small

Re: [HACKERS] s/xlog/wal/ in tools and function names?

2016-12-02 Thread Euler Taveira
On 01-12-2016 23:02, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> Should we also: >>> >>> - rename pg_switch_xlog and friends to pg_switch_wal? >>> - rename pg_recievexlog to pg_revievewal (and others in bin/)? >>> - rename pg_xlogdump to pg_waldump? >> >> I think yes to all. > +1. > I was hesitant to propose

Re: [HACKERS] Dynamic shared memory areas

2016-12-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> Please find attached dsa-v8.patch, and also a small test module for >> running random allocate/free exercises and dumping the

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes

2016-12-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> I want to split when the average bucket >> contains 10 pages worth of tuples. > > oh, I think what you mean to say is hack the code to bump fill factor > and then test it. I was confused that how can user can do that

Re: [HACKERS] Dynamic shared memory areas

2016-12-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > Please find attached dsa-v8.patch, and also a small test module for > running random allocate/free exercises and dumping the internal > allocator state. OK, I've committed the main patch. As far as

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

2016-12-02 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 11/20/16 1:02 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > 0001: > This is the reworked approach to temporary slots that I sent earlier. Andres, you had expressed an interest in this. Will you be able to review it soon? -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7

Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless

2016-12-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Corey Huinker wrote: > In order for me to understand how high the bar has been set, can you > (Robert/Tom mostly, but I welcome any responses) explain what you mean by > "full-blown expression language"? What constructs must it include,

Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless

2016-12-02 Thread Tom Lane
Corey Huinker writes: > In order for me to understand how high the bar has been set, can you > (Robert/Tom mostly, but I welcome any responses) explain what you mean by > "full-blown expression language"? What constructs must it include, etc? My guess is that something

Re: [HACKERS] patch: function xmltable

2016-12-02 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Hm, you omitted tableexpr.h from the v15 patch ... -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless

2016-12-02 Thread Corey Huinker
> > > The other problem with not thinking about that general case is that > people will keep on proposing little bitty features that nibble at > the problem but may or may not be compatible with a general solution. > To the extent that such patches get accepted, we'll be forced into > either

Re: [HACKERS] UNDO and in-place update

2016-12-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > Idea of storing just one visibility bit in index tuple is a subject of > serious doubts for me. > > 1. When definitely-all-visible isn't set then we have to recheck during > scanning heap, right? > But our

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.

2016-12-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:00 AM, Mithun Cy wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Mithun Cy > wrote: >> Thanks, send query resets the errorMessage. Will fix same. >> PQsendQuery()->PQsendQueryStart()->resetPQExpBuffer(>errorMessage); > >

Re: [HACKERS] GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree

2016-12-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Andrew Borodin wrote: > This scan acquires cleanup lock on root of scan (not necessarily root > of posting tree). Cleanup lock ensures no inserts are inside subtree. > Scan traverses subtree DF taking exclusive locks from left to right. >

Re: [HACKERS] Improvements in psql hooks for variables

2016-12-02 Thread Rahila Syed
I applied and tested the patch on latest master branch. Kindly consider following comments, ParseVariableBool(const char *value, const char *name) +ParseVariableBool(const char *value, const char *name, bool *valid) { size_t len; + if (valid) + *valid = true;

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: Add putenv support for msvcrt from Visual Studio 2013

2016-12-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 08:45:13PM +0100, Christian Ullrich wrote: >> * Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Christian Ullrich >> > wrote: >> >> I also did a

Re: [HACKERS] s/xlog/wal/ in tools and function names?

2016-12-02 Thread Vladimir Rusinov
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:59 PM Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Vladimir Rusinov > wrote: > > I guess it would make sense to do all of it in 10.0. > > I'm new here, so not very sure about process. How many commit fests >

[HACKERS] Re: [DOCS] monitoring.sgml - clarify length of query text displayed in pg_stat_statements

2016-12-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Ian Barwick wrote: > Small doc patch to clarify how much of the query text is show in > pg_stat_statements > and a link to the relevant GUC. This patch improves the pg_stat_activity documentation, not the pg_stat_statements

Re: [HACKERS] s/xlog/wal/ in tools and function names?

2016-12-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote: > I guess it would make sense to do all of it in 10.0. > I'm new here, so not very sure about process. How many commit fests could I > expect before 10.0 is out (I'm a bit busy at the moment)? There are two remaining:

Re: [HACKERS] Tackling JsonPath support

2016-12-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Christian Convey wrote: > I think I can satisfy (3) with a PG extension which provides a function that > approximately implements JSONPath. My short-term plans are to submit such a > patch. FWIW, I think that's a fine plan. I don't

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

2016-12-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> Thanks. I am thinking that it might make sense to try to get the >> "microvacuum support for hash index" and "cache hash index meta page" >> patches committed before this one, because I'm guessing they are much >>

[HACKERS] Re: 答复: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] 答复: [HACKERS] postgres 1 个(共 2 个) can pg 9.6 vacuum freeze skip page on index?

2016-12-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:54 PM, xu jian wrote: > Thanks every for your help. I am not familiar with the internal of the > vacuum freeze, just curious if there is no row change on the table(in other > words, all pages are frozen), why could index page have dead tuple? It

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

2016-12-02 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 02/12/16 02:55, Thomas Munro wrote: > > Commit 597a87ccc9a6fa8af7f3cf280b1e24e41807d555 left some comments > > behind that referred to the select() that it removed. Maybe rewrite > > like in the attached? > > Agreed. Thanks, pushed. -- Álvaro Herrera

Re: [HACKERS] Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique

2016-12-02 Thread Haribabu Kommi
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:21 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 31 October 2016 at 18:37, David Rowley > wrote: > > I've rebased the changes I made to address this back in April to current > master. > > Please note that I went ahead and

Re: [HACKERS] Rename max_parallel_degree?

2016-12-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:07 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > From the recent mails, it is not clear to me what is the status of this > patch. > moved to next CF with "needs review" state. Please feel free to update > the status. I have committed this patch. And updated the

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

2016-12-02 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 02/12/16 02:55, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> On 11/30/16 8:06 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: >>> On 30/11/16 22:37, Peter Eisentraut wrote: I have taken the libpqwalreceiver refactoring patch and split it

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash

2016-12-02 Thread Haribabu Kommi
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > Obviously I'm actively working on developing and stabilising all this. > Some of the things I'm working on are: work_mem accounting, batch > increases, rescans and figuring out if the resource management for >

Re: [HACKERS] background sessions

2016-12-02 Thread Haribabu Kommi
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Here is a patch for the background sessions C API and PL/Python support. > This was previously submitted as "autonomous transactions", which > proved controversial, and there have been several

Re: ParallelFinish-hook of FDW/CSP (Re: [HACKERS] Steps inside ExecEndGather)

2016-12-02 Thread Haribabu Kommi
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 1:33 AM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: > Hello, > > The attached patch implements the suggestion by Amit before. > > What I'm motivated is to collect extra run-time statistics specific > to a particular ForeignScan/CustomScan, not only the standard >

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: scan key push down to heap [WIP]

2016-12-02 Thread Haribabu Kommi
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-11-30 16:11:23 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Robert Haas > wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Dilip Kumar > wrote: > >

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

2016-12-02 Thread Haribabu Kommi
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Mithun Cy wrote: > Sorry I took some time on this please find latest patch with addressed > review comments. Apart from fixes for comments I have introduced a new GUC > variable for the pg_autoprewarm "buff_dump_interval". So now we

Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows

2016-12-02 Thread Haribabu Kommi
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki < tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > Moved to next CF with "needs review" status. Regards, Hari Babu Fujitsu Australia

Re: [HACKERS] Improvements in psql hooks for variables

2016-12-02 Thread Haribabu Kommi
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Daniel Verite wrote: >I wrote: > > > So I went through the psql commands which don't fail on parse errors > > for booleans > > [...] > > Here's a v5 patch implementing the suggestions mentioned upthread: > all meta-commands calling

Re: [HACKERS] patch proposal

2016-12-02 Thread Haribabu Kommi
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > Hi Abhijit, > > This is a gentle reminder. > > you assigned as reviewer to the current patch in the 11-2016 commitfest. > But you haven't shared your review yet. Please share your review about > the patch. This

Re: [HACKERS] Dynamic shared memory areas

2016-12-02 Thread Haribabu Kommi
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > > Please find attached dsa-v8.patch, and also a small test module for > running random allocate/free exercises and dumping the internal > allocator state. Moved to next CF with "needs review" status.

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: multivariate statistics / proof of concept

2016-12-02 Thread Haribabu Kommi
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 11/21/2016 11:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> [ reviving an old multivariate statistics thread ] >> >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Simon Riggs >> wrote: >> >>> On 12 October 2014

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

2016-12-02 Thread Haribabu Kommi
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 11/23/16 5:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I looked at this briefly. I agree that 0001-0003 are simple cleanup of > > the grammar and could be pushed without further ado. > > Done. > > > However, starting

Re: [HACKERS] Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function

2016-12-02 Thread Haribabu Kommi
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Karl O. Pinc wrote: > On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:54:46 +0100 > Gilles Darold wrote: > > > I've attached the v15 of the patch > > > I've not applied patch patch_pg_current_logfile-v14.diff.backoff to > > prevent constant call

Re: [HACKERS] s/xlog/wal/ in tools and function names?

2016-12-02 Thread Vladimir Rusinov
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:02 AM Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Vladimir Rusinov > wrote: > >> I've found myself wondering "where is my xlog"

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

2016-12-02 Thread Fabien COELHO
Hello, Sorry for the changing the status of the patch against to the current status. While going through the recent mails, I thought that there is some disagreement from committer. If so, I'm willing to explain again why these operators are useful for writing some benchmarks, for instance,

Re: [HACKERS] UNDO and in-place update

2016-12-02 Thread Alexander Korotkov
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > There's a couple of possible designs here, but there is the > possibility for extra hops in some cases. But there are things we can > do to mitigate that. > > 1. If each tuple has a definitely-all-visible bit, you can

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel execution and prepared statements

2016-12-02 Thread Tobias Bussmann
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> OK, then my vote is to do it that way for now. Thanks for your opinion. That's fine with me. > Am 02.12.2016 um 07:22 schrieb Amit Kapila : > Done that way in attached patch. Did a