On 3 August 2015 at 16:09, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Dean, all,
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote:
Agreed. I'm happy to commit that change and back-patch it to 9.5,
barring objections. Given that the only way to have restrictive
policies currently is using hooks, I
Simon Riggs wrote:
* For emergency anti-wraparound VACUUMs we shouldn't scan indexes at all,
since they aren't critical path activities at that point
It is not possible to skip scanning indexes completely, unless no tuples
are to be removed from the heap. Otherwise, index tuples become
Hi
We've come across a weirdness with ON CONFLICT, where UPSERTing a smallint
value produces an error:
db=# INSERT INTO brokentab(id, k1,k2,k3,k4,k5,k6,k7, smallval) VALUES
(5,0,0,0,1,0,1,0, 0) ON CONFLICT (id, k1,k2,k3,k4,k5,k6,k7) DO UPDATE SET
smallval=EXCLUDED.smallval;
ERROR: attribute 29
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Anastasia Lubennikova
a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru mailto:a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru
wrote:
1) Test and results are in attachments. Everything seems to work
as expected.
2) I dropped these notices. It was done only for debug purposes.
Qingqing Zhou wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
I think a better option would be shoving it into a backend tuplestore and
just leaving it there (maybe with a command to clear it for the paranoid).
That gives a relation you can query against,
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Here are some minor comments:
+ereport(LOG,
+
Hi,
track_commit_timestamp tracks COMMIT PREPARED as expected in standby server,
but not in master server. Is this intentional? It should track COMMIT PREPARED
even in master? Otherwise, we cannot use commit_timestamp feature to check
the replication lag properly while we use 2PC.
Regards,
--
On 3 August 2015 at 16:53, Geoff Winkless pgsqlad...@geoff.dj wrote:
If I create a copy of the table using
CREATE mytab (LIKE brokentab INCLUDING ALL);
Of course I meant CREATE TABLE here... finger slippage :)
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 22 July 2015 at 17:11, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:03 AM, 高增琦 pgf...@gmail.com wrote:
sorry for asking this really old commit.
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=7ab9b2f3b79177e501a1ef90ed004cc68788abaf
I could not understand why releases the lock on the buffer is
a problem since
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On August 1, 2015 2:17:24 PM GMT+02:00, Michael Paquier wrote:
For instance, if you told me to choose between ShareLock and
ShareUpdateExclusiveLock I
On 2015-08-03 PM 09:24, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, sure. But let's make sure postgres_fdw gets a server-level option
to control this.
For postgres_fdw it's a boolean server-level option 'twophase_compliant'
* Peter Geoghegan (p...@heroku.com) wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
If you're using another well known MVCC database system that has RLS,
I imagine when this happens the attacker similarly waits on the
conflicting (privileged) xact to finish
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Thoughts? Trying to keep it straight-forward and provide a simple
solution for users to be able to address the issue, if they're worried
about it. Perhaps this, plus an additional paragraph which goes into
more detail
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you sure we need to do all this changes just to check the highest
locklevel based on the reloptions?
Well, by looking at the code that's what it looks as. That's a large
change not that straight-forward.
For a GIN index with fastupdate turned on, both the user backends and
autoanalyze routine will clear out the pending list, pushing the entries
into the normal index structure and deleting the pages used by the pending
list. But those deleted pages will not get added to the freespace map
until a
Hi all,
As mentioned in the thread related to lowering locks of autovacuum
reloptions in ALTER TABLE SET
(http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cafcns+ox7jvenc_3i54fdq3ibmogmknc2tmevdsmvojbsxg...@mail.gmail.com),
I have noticed the following code in
AlterTableGetLockLevel@tablecmds.c:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Christoph Berg m...@debian.org wrote:
Re: Michael Paquier 2015-07-28
cab7npqqcpgy3u7cmfo8sqquobsfmeieohueslxwycc64j3g...@mail.gmail.com
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Christoph Berg m...@debian.org wrote:
for something between 10% and 20% of the devel builds
On Jul 31, 2015 4:22 AM, Jeremy Harris j...@wizmail.org wrote:
On 30/07/15 02:05, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Since heapification is now a big fraction of the total cost of a sort
sometimes, even where the heap invariant need not be maintained for
any length of time afterwards, it might be
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks! Pushed.
Thanks to you as well for committing the patch.
BTW, while reading the code related to tablespace_map, I found that
CancelBackup() emits the WARNING message online backup mode was not
canceled
when
During working on allowing the planner to perform GROUP BY before joining
I've noticed that cost_agg() completely ignores input_startup_cost
when aggstrategy == AGG_HASHED.
I can see at least 3 call to cost_agg() which pass aggstrategy as
AGG_HASHED that are also passing a possible non-zero
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 3 August 2015 at 17:36, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Simon Riggs wrote:
* For emergency anti-wraparound VACUUMs we shouldn't scan indexes at
all,
since they
Michael Paquier wrote:
As mentioned in the thread related to lowering locks of autovacuum
reloptions in ALTER TABLE SET
(http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cafcns+ox7jvenc_3i54fdq3ibmogmknc2tmevdsmvojbsxg...@mail.gmail.com),
I have noticed the following code in
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Beena Emerson memissemer...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Just looking at how the 2 differnt methods can be used to set the s_s_names
value.
1. For a simple case where quorum is required for a single group the JSON
could be:
{
sync_standby_names:
Why does this cause a core dump? We could consider fixing whatever
the problem is rather than capping the value.
As far as I experiment with my own evaluation environment using
PostgreSQL-9.4.4 on a x86_64 Linux, this problem can be fixed with the patch
attached.
I have confirmed that
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think that's what Heikki is talking about. He can correct me
if I'm wrong, but what I think he's saying is that we should try to
exploit the fact that we've already determined which in-memory tuples
can be part
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Anastasia Lubennikova
a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru wrote:
1) Test and results are in attachments. Everything seems to work as
expected.
2) I dropped these notices. It was done only for debug purposes. Updated
patch is attached.
3) fixed
Good! Another
В письме от 3 августа 2015 14:30:46 пользователь Michael Paquier написал:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 1:03 AM, Nikolay Shaplov
n.shap...@postgrespro.ru wrote:
Hi!
I've created a patch for pageinspect that allows to see data stored in the
tuple.
This patch has two main purposes:
30.07.2015 16:33, Alexander Korotkov пишет:
Hi!
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Anastasia Lubennikova
lubennikov...@gmail.com mailto:lubennikov...@gmail.com wrote:
I have written microvacuum support for gist access method.
Briefly microvacuum includes two steps:
1. When search
Re: Michael Paquier 2015-07-28
cab7npqqcpgy3u7cmfo8sqquobsfmeieohueslxwycc64j3g...@mail.gmail.com
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Christoph Berg m...@debian.org wrote:
for something between 10% and 20% of the devel builds for apt.postgresql.org
(which happen every 6h if there's a git
On 2 August 2015 at 13:13, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi all,
Commit 4046e58c (dated of 2001) has introduced the following comment
in vacuumlazy.c:
+ /* If any tuples need to be deleted, perform final vacuum cycle */
+ /* XXX put a threshold on min nuber of
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-06-19 06:41:19 +, Brendan Jurd wrote:
I'm marking this Waiting on Author. Once the problems have been
corrected, it should be ready for a committer.
Vik, are you going to update the patch?
Seeing no activity
Peter Geoghegan writes:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Andreas Seltenreich seltenre...@gmx.de
wrote:
sqlsmith triggered the following assertion in master (c188204).
Thanks for writing sqlsmith. It seems like a great tool.
I wonder, are you just running the tool with assertions enabled
Dean, all,
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote:
Agreed. I'm happy to commit that change and back-patch it to 9.5,
barring objections. Given that the only way to have restrictive
policies currently is using hooks, I don't believe there's any
documentation update required either; of
Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
I'm surprised that this stuff was only ever used for logical decoding
infrastructure so far.
On second thought, having tried it, one reason is that that breaks
things that are considered
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
* For emergency anti-wraparound VACUUMs we shouldn't scan indexes at all,
since they aren't critical path activities at that point
It is not possible to skip scanning indexes completely, unless
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Geoff Winkless pgsqlad...@geoff.dj wrote:
the new table does not exhibit the same problem (so I'm assuming it's not
easily reproducible and giving you a creation script isn't going to help).
VACUUM FULL on the table makes no difference.
Is there anything you
Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
This patch adds several new functions, available from SQL queries. All these
functions are based on heap_page_items, but accept slightly different
arguments and has one additional column at the result set:
heap_page_tuples - accepts relation name, and bulkno, and
Piotr Stefaniak postg...@piotr-stefaniak.me writes:
How about this one?
1 ERROR: could not find RelOptInfo for given relids
That would be a bug, for sure ...
It's triggered on 13bba02271dce865cd20b6f49224889c73fed4e7 by this query
and the attached one:
... but I can't reproduce it on
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:13 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
* For normal VACUUMs we should scan indexes only if (num_dead_tuples * 20)
(blocks to be scanned in any one index), which allows some index bloat but
not much
I think this kind of heuristic is good, but I think we should
Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Couldn't we adopt
AssertVariableIsOfType()/AssertVariableIsOfTypeMacro() to macros like
READ_UINT_FIELD()?
I'm surprised that this stuff was only ever used for logical decoding
infrastructure so far.
The reason it's only used there is that Andres is the one who
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Simon Riggs wrote:
* For emergency anti-wraparound VACUUMs we shouldn't scan indexes at all,
since they aren't critical path activities at that point
It is not possible to skip scanning indexes completely, unless no tuples
are to be removed
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 07/31/2015 10:43 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
In guc.c, the maximum for wal_buffers is INT_MAX. However, wal_buffers
is actually measured in 8KB buffers,
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:31:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
That being the case, it would probably be a good idea to get them done
before alpha2, as there may not be a good opportunity afterwards.
Freedom to bump catversion after alpha2 will be
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Geoff Winkless pgsqlad...@geoff.dj wrote:
If I create a copy of the table using
CREATE mytab (LIKE brokentab INCLUDING ALL);
INSERT INTO mytab SELECT * FROM brokentab;
Also, did you drop any columns from the original brokentab table
where the bug can be
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Here are some minor comments:
+ereport(LOG,
+(errmsg(ignoring \%s\ file because no
\%s\ file
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
I'm not hung up on the table-level attribute, but I think having a
server-level attribute rather than a global GUC is a good idea.
In get_row_security_policies():
/*
* If the only built-in policy is the default-deny one, and hook policies
* exist, then use the hook policies only and do not apply the
* default-deny policy. Otherwise, we will apply both sets below.
*/
if (defaultDeny
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de
wrote:
On 2015-07-29 12:54:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I would try to avoid changing lwlock.c. It's pretty easy when so
doing to create
On 08/03/2015 07:01 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Perhaps it's best if we copy all the WAL files from source in copy-mode, but
not in libpq mode. Regarding old WAL files in the target, it's probably best
to always leave them alone. They
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Rajeev rastogi
rajeev.rast...@huawei.com wrote:
On 31 July 2015 23:10, Robert Haas Wrote:
I think we're going entirely down the wrong path here. Why is it ever useful
for a backend's lock requests to conflict with themselves, even with
autonomous transactions?
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote:
On 06/29/2015 09:44 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29,
On 07/28/2015 10:28 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 07/27/2015 01:20 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote:
Hello.
In the attached patch I've made a refactoring for tranches.
The prefix for them was extended, and I've did a split of LWLockAssign
to two
functions (one with tranche and second for user
Dean,
* Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
In get_row_security_policies():
/*
* If the only built-in policy is the default-deny one, and hook policies
* exist, then use the hook policies only and do not apply the
* default-deny policy. Otherwise, we will
Dean,
* Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 3 August 2015 at 16:09, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote:
Agreed. I'm happy to commit that change and back-patch it to 9.5,
barring objections. Given that the only way to have
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote:
Oh, ok, I was confused on how the heap works. You could still abstract this
as in-memory tails of the tapes, but it's more complicated than I thought
at first:
When it's time to drain the heap, in performsort, divide
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Jeremy Harris j...@wizmail.org wrote:
On 31/07/15 18:31, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Jeremy Harris j...@wizmail.org wrote:
Heapification is O(n) already, whether siftup (existing) or down.
That's not my impression, or what Wikipedia
On 8/3/15 12:04 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
Yes, that's what I was thinking, I just didn't say actually it. I'd been
thinking about having VACUUM do just Phase 1 for some time, since its so
much faster to do that. Will code.
I'd like to see that exposed as an option as well. There are certain
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-07-31 13:31:54 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Jeremy Harris j...@wizmail.org wrote:
Heapification is O(n) already, whether siftup (existing) or down.
That's not my impression, or what
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
When it's time to drain the heap, in performsort, divide the array into two
arrays, based on the run number of each tuple, and then quicksort the arrays
separately. The first array becomes the in-memory tail of the current
60 matches
Mail list logo
