Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: index-only scans with partial indexes

On 4 September 2015 at 22:03, Tomas Vondra wrote: > A summary of 100 EXPLAIN timings looks like this: > > > master A B C D E F > - > min

[HACKERS] jsonb_concat: make sure we always return a non-scalar value

There was a long thread about concatenating jsonb objects to each other, but that discussion didn't touch concatenating other types. Currently jsonb_concat always just returns the other argument if one of arguments is considered empty. This causes surprising behavior when concatenating

Re: [HACKERS] checkpointer continuous flushing

I would be curious whether flushing helps, though. Yes, me too. I think we should try to reach on consensus for exact scenarios and configuration where this patch('es) can give benefit or we want to verify if there is any regression as I have access to this m/c for a very-very limited

[HACKERS] misc typofixes

Attached a patch to fix a number of typos in docs and comments I noticed over the past few weeks. / Oskari >From dd5cb727d7fc1f1168040f502521a897d01cc127 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Oskari Saarenmaa Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 10:12:04 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] typofixes ---

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Core dump with nested CREATE TEMP TABLE

On 9/4/15 12:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: After review of all the callers of RelationClearRelation, it seems like most of them already have sufficient guards to prevent triggering of the Assert. The ones that lack such tests are AtEOXact_cleanup and AtEOSubXact_cleanup. So what I'm now

Re: [HACKERS] track_commit_timestamp and COMMIT PREPARED

On 2015-09-02 16:14, Fujii Masao wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: track_commit_timestamp tracks COMMIT PREPARED as expected in standby server, but not in master server.

Re: [HACKERS] misc typofixes

On 09/05/2015 10:16 AM, Oskari Saarenmaa wrote: Attached a patch to fix a number of typos in docs and comments I noticed over the past few weeks. Thanks, applied! - Heikki -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a bug?

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 09:40:10AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Alvaro Herrera > > wrote: > > > Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > > > > > >> Why this patch was reverted one day after

Re: [HACKERS] checkpointer continuous flushing

Hello Amit, Woops 14 GB/s and 1.2 GB/s?! Is this a *hard* disk?? Yes, there is no SSD in system. I have confirmed the same. There are RAID spinning drives. Ok... I guess that there is some kind of cache to explain these great tps figures, probably on the RAID controller. What does

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Core dump with nested CREATE TEMP TABLE

On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > I was about to test this and was verifying that the crash still worked > when I noticed this in the logs (9.4.1, not HEAD). Not sure if there's any > realion here or not... > > WARNING: relation "pg_proc" page 121 is

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] SQL function to report log message

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > 2015-09-02 21:49 GMT+02:00 dinesh kumar : > >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Pavel Stehule >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 2015-09-01 6:59 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] SQL function to report log message

2015-09-05 8:35 GMT+02:00 dinesh kumar : > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > >> >> >> 2015-09-02 21:49 GMT+02:00 dinesh kumar : >> >>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Pavel Stehule

[HACKERS] [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches

Hello hackers!This patch contains LWLocks changes from pg_stat_activity thread(http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/ca+tgmoyd3gtz2_mjfuhf+rpe-bcy75ytjekvv9x-o+soncg...@mail.gmail.com/)and I think it deserves a separate thread.The goal is to split LWLocks from one array to logical pieces (with

Re: [HACKERS] Counting lines correctly in psql help displays

On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Ordinarily I might think that was overkill, but given the number of times > that we've failed to update those counts in the past, I think this is > definitely a worthwhile investment in maintainability. So to preface this,

[HACKERS] Outdated documentation for PageHeaderData

Hi, I just noticed that part of storage.sgml was not updated when 9.3 introduced checksum (and removed pd_tli from PageHeaderData). Here's a simple patch to fix that. Regards. -- Julien Rouhaud http://dalibo.com - http://dalibo.org diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/storage.sgml

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] SQL function to report log message

Hi Pavel, On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > 2015-09-05 8:35 GMT+02:00 dinesh kumar : > >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Pavel Stehule >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 2015-09-02 21:49 GMT+02:00

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: index-only scans with partial indexes

Hi, On 09/05/2015 10:53 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: On 4 September 2015 at 22:03, Tomas Vondra > wrote: A summary of 100 EXPLAIN timings looks like this: master A B C D E

[HACKERS] Fix small bug for build without HAVE_SYMLINK

Hello hackers. During my work on CMake I stumbled upon this simple bug. I think this is important for mingw users. The function is trying to return a variable that has not been announced. Patch in attach. Probably relevant for stable releases. Thanks! -- YUriy Zhuravlev Postgres

Re: [HACKERS] Multi-column distinctness.

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 05:33:34PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Hello, this patch enables planner to be couscious of inter-column > correlation. > > Sometimes two or more columns in a table has some correlation > which brings underestimate, which leads to wrong join method and > ends with

Re: [HACKERS] Counting lines correctly in psql help displays

Greg Stark writes: > But that said, here's a tricksy patch that triggers an assertion > failure if the expected_lines is wrong. I intended it to trigger in > the regression tests so it only checks if the pager is actually off. > It wouldn't be hard to make it always check though.

Re: [HACKERS] Fix small bug for build without HAVE_SYMLINK

YUriy Zhuravlev writes: > During my work on CMake I stumbled upon this simple bug. I think this is > important for mingw users. > The function is trying to return a variable that has not been announced. > Patch in attach. Probably relevant for stable releases. Will

Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Core dump with nested CREATE TEMP TABLE

Michael Paquier writes: > On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: >> I was about to test this and was verifying that the crash still worked >> when I noticed this in the logs (9.4.1, not HEAD). Not sure if there's any >> realion here

[HACKERS] Counting lines correctly in psql help displays

I wrote: > BTW, I noticed that the PageOutput line counts for psql's usage(), > slashUsage(), and helpVariables() were all three wrong, which I'm afraid > has been their usual state in the past too. Since commit 07c8651dd91d5aea > there's been a pretty easy way to check them, which I added

Re: [HACKERS] PL/pgSQL, RAISE and error context

I wrote: > If there are not major objections, I'll work on cleaning up and > committing the patch. Pushed. I'm not too sure about the expected outputs for python other than 2.6, nor for sepgsql, but hopefully the buildfarm will provide feedback. BTW, I noticed that the PageOutput line counts

Re: [HACKERS] PL/pgSQL, RAISE and error context

On 09/05/2015 09:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> If there are not major objections, I'll work on cleaning up and >> committing the patch. > > Pushed. I'm not too sure about the expected outputs for python other > than 2.6, nor for sepgsql, but hopefully the buildfarm will provide >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl/pg_rewind tests vs. slow AIX buildfarm members

On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 10:54:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch writes: > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 03:31:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> This is the first time I've seen an indication that the > >>> start_postmaster change mentioned in the comment is actually

Re: [HACKERS] Outdated documentation for PageHeaderData

On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 5:11 AM, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > I just noticed that part of storage.sgml was not updated when 9.3 > introduced checksum (and removed pd_tli from PageHeaderData). > Yep, see that as well:

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl/pg_rewind tests vs. slow AIX buildfarm members

On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 10:22:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch writes: > > kill() adds nothing when dealing with a pg_ctl child. waitpid() is enough. > > The kill() coding works on Windows (I believe); waitpid() not so much. Windows has the concept under a different

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl/pg_rewind tests vs. slow AIX buildfarm members

Noah Misch writes: > On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 10:22:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> The kill() coding works on Windows (I believe); waitpid() not so much. > Windows has the concept under a different name. See postmaster.c. Well, if someone else wants to code and test that,

Re: [HACKERS] Failing assertions in indxpath.c, placeholder.c and brin_minmax.c

On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > The SQLite people have been using a tool like this for some time. > They've also had luck finding bugs with a generic fuzz-testing tool > called "american fuzzy lop" (yes, seriously, that's what it's called), > which

Re: [HACKERS] Pg_upgrade remote copy

Thanks for the solution. On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 04:50:32PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:34:38PM -0700, AI Rumman wrote: > > > > > > In pg_upgrade, how about adding

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl/pg_rewind tests vs. slow AIX buildfarm members

Noah Misch writes: > kill() adds nothing when dealing with a pg_ctl child. waitpid() is enough. The kill() coding works on Windows (I believe); waitpid() not so much. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] PL/pgSQL, RAISE and error context

> Pushed. I'm not too sure about the expected outputs for python other > than 2.6, nor for sepgsql, but hopefully the buildfarm will provide > feedback. > > Thank you very much Pavel

Re: [HACKERS] Autonomous Transaction is back

On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 04:21:55PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > >> > Can you get away with only looking at tuples though? For example, > >> > what about advisory locks? Table locks? > >> > >> Well, that's an interesting

Re: [HACKERS] Allow a per-tablespace effective_io_concurrency setting

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Greg Stark wrote: > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >> I find this talk of platters and spindles to be somewhat >> baroque; for a 200$ part I have to work pretty hard to max out the >> drive when reading