Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> Sounds like both the approaches have some pros and cons, also there are >>> some people who prefer mini-language and others who

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] DIAGNOSTICS = SKIPPED_ROW_COUNT

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:53 AM, David G. Johnston < david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > Using this attribute, we can have more control on parallel operations >>> like, >>> >>> > IF SKIPPED_ROW_COUNT =0 THEN >>> > <> >>> > ELSE >>> > <> >>> > END IF; >>> >>> Um ... so what? This is not a

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

2015-10-13 23:28 GMT+02:00 David Rowley : > On 4 September 2015 at 04:50, Robert Haas wrote: > >> >> Also: very nice performance results. >> >> > Thanks. > > On following a thread in [General] [1] it occurred to me that this patch > can give a

Re: [HACKERS] Release of CVEs

On 14/10/15 18:19, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: Michael Paquier writes: On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: I don't know that there's anything the PostgreSQL project can do about it. If anyone on this list is connected with MITRE, please ask them what

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Michael Paquier writes: > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> After poking around a bit more, I propose the attached patch. I've > >> checked that this is

Re: [HACKERS] Dangling Client Backend Process

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Rajeev rastogi wrote: > On 12th October 2015 20:45, Rajeev Rastogi Wrote: > > > > >>> I observed one strange behavior today that if postmaster process gets > crashed/killed, then it kill all background processes but not the client >

Re: [HACKERS] Release of CVEs

I wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: >>> I don't know that there's anything the PostgreSQL project can do about >>> it. If anyone on this list is connected with MITRE, please ask them >>> what they need to be more

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > The draft patch of replication using priority is already implemented > by Michael, so I need to implement simple quorum commit logic and > merge them. The last patch in date I know of is this one:

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

> -Original Message- > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Etsuro Fujita > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 7:56 PM > To: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI; robertmh...@gmail.com > Cc: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平); pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; >

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On 13 October 2015 at 02:14, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: > > Parallel aggregate is the feature doing the aggregation job parallel > > with the help of Gather and > > partial seq scan nodes. The

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> This is kind of a mess :-(. But it does look like what we want is >> for SubPostmasterMain to do more than nothing when it chooses not to >> reattach. Probably that should include resetting UsedShmemSegAddr to >>

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > Right, it should initialize parallel scan properly even for non-synchronized > scans. Fixed the issue in attached patch. Rebased heap rescan is > attached as well. > Attached is rebased patch for partial seqscan

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:53 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 13 October 2015 at 17:09, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Robert Haas >> wrote: >> > Also, I think the path for parallel

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server

> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> >> In the interest of full disclosure, I asked Ashutosh to work on this >> patch and have discussed the design with him several times. I believe >> that this is a good direction for PostgreSQL to be going. It's >>

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On 13 October 2015 at 17:09, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Robert Haas > wrote: > > Also, I think the path for parallel aggregation should probably be > > something like FinalizeAgg -> Gather -> PartialAgg -> some

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: > > standard_qp_callback() sets root->query_pathkeys to pathkeys on which the > > result of query_planner are expected be sorted

Re: [HACKERS] Dangling Client Backend Process

On 12th October 2015 20:45, Rajeev Rastogi Wrote: >>> I observed one strange behavior today that if postmaster process gets >>> crashed/killed, then it kill all background processes but not the client >>> backend process. >> This is a known behaviour and there was some discussion on this >>

[HACKERS] Eclipse Help

Hi All, I was able to follow the debugging of the child process using this link, https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Working_with_Eclipse As per the notes , I was able to set breakpoints and everything seem to be working (hopefully). However I am not able to see the debug messages in the eclipse

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On 10/12/2015 04:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: This is kind of a mess :-(. But it does look like what we want is for SubPostmasterMain to do more than nothing when it chooses not to reattach. Probably that should include resetting UsedShmemSegAddr to NULL, as well as closing the handle.

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 10/12/2015 04:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> BTW, it appears from this that Cygwin builds have been broken right along >> in a different way: according to the code in sysv_shmem's >> PGSharedMemoryReAttach, Cygwin does cause a re-attach to occur, which

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Cause TestLib.pm to define $windows_os in all branches.

On 10/12/2015 10:45 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Hmm, well, why wasn't that back-patched? We expect these tests to run on Windows don't we? The message related to this particular commit is here:

Re: [HACKERS] bugs and bug tracking

On 10/12/2015 07:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Nathan Wagner wrote: Two, I think any attempt to tell the developers and committers that they need to change their workflow to adapt to some system is bound to fail, so, I have asked, just what

[HACKERS] Re: Memory prefetching while sequentially fetching from SortTuple array, tuplestore

On 10/11/2015 03:20 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:35 PM, David Rowley > wrote: >> My test cases are: > > Note that my text caching and unsigned integer comparison patches have > moved the baseline down quite noticeably. I think that my mobile

Re: [HACKERS] bugs and bug tracking

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 10/12/2015 07:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Nathan Wagner >> wrote: >> >>> Two, I think any attempt to tell the developers and committers that they >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Jeevan Chalke < jeevan.cha...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >>> >>> In the interest of full disclosure, I asked Ashutosh to work on this >>> patch and have discussed the design with him

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] DIAGNOSTICS = SKIPPED_ROW_COUNT

> > >> > Using this attribute, we can have more control on parallel operations >> like, >> >> > IF SKIPPED_ROW_COUNT =0 THEN >> > <> >> > ELSE >> > <> >> > END IF; >> >> Um ... so what? This is not a use-case. >> >> > In my view, "How one can be sure that, he obtained all the tuples with > SKIP

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

Michael Paquier writes: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm not sure if this will completely fix our problems with "pg_ctl start" >> related buildfarm failures on very slow critters. It does get rid of the >> hard wired

Re: [HACKERS] bugs and bug tracking

On 13/10/15 04:40, Tom Lane wrote: I'm with Robert on the idea that commit log entries need to be limited-width. I personally format them to 75 characters, so that git_changelog's output is less than 80 characters. regards, tom lane Little bit off-topic, but if precisely if we're trying

Re: [HACKERS] bugs and bug tracking

On 10/13/2015 10:21 AM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: On 13/10/15 04:40, Tom Lane wrote: I'm with Robert on the idea that commit log entries need to be limited-width. I personally format them to 75 characters, so that git_changelog's output is less than 80 characters. regards, tom lane

Re: [HACKERS] bugs and bug tracking

Andres Freund writes: > On 2015-10-13 16:21:54 +0200, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: >> (50 chars for the commit summary, 72 chars line wrapping) > -1 - imo 50 chars too often makes the commit summary too unspecific, > requiring to read much more. I agree --- I have a hard

Re: [HACKERS] Improve the concurency of vacuum full table and select statement on the same relation

>>it's approach to this is to summarily kill anything that attempts DDL on a >>table being repacked. Why? I am confused with it. Could you please explain this? Jinyu Zhang thanks At 2015-10-12 23:46:12, "Jim Nasby" wrote: >On 10/11/15 6:55 AM, Jinyu wrote: >>

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

Michael Paquier writes: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> After poking around a bit more, I propose the attached patch. I've >> checked that this is happy with an EXEC_BACKEND Unix build, but I'm not >> able to test it on

Re: [HACKERS] bugs and bug tracking

On 13/10/15 16:24, Andres Freund wrote: On 2015-10-13 16:21:54 +0200, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: On 13/10/15 04:40, Tom Lane wrote: I'm with Robert on the idea that commit log entries need to be limited-width. I personally format them to 75 characters, so that git_changelog's output is

Re: [HACKERS] bugs and bug tracking

On 2015-10-13 16:21:54 +0200, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: > > On 13/10/15 04:40, Tom Lane wrote: > >I'm with Robert on the idea that commit log entries need to be > >limited-width. I personally format them to 75 characters, so that > >git_changelog's output is less than 80 characters.

Re: [HACKERS] bugs and bug tracking

On 10/13/2015 08:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Andres Freund writes: On 2015-10-13 16:21:54 +0200, �lvaro Hern�ndez Tortosa wrote: (50 chars for the commit summary, 72 chars line wrapping) -1 - imo 50 chars too often makes the commit summary too unspecific, requiring to read

[HACKERS] Database schema diff

Hi guys, I would like to ask you whether is there any tool to be able to compare database schemas ideally no matter what the column order is or to dump database table with ascending order of all database columns. For example, if I have table (called table) in schema A and in schema B (the time

Re: [HACKERS] bugs and bug tracking

On 13/10/15 17:39, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 10/13/2015 08:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Andres Freund writes: On 2015-10-13 16:21:54 +0200, �lvaro Hern�ndez Tortosa wrote: (50 chars for the commit summary, 72 chars line wrapping) -1 - imo 50 chars too often makes the commit

Re: [HACKERS] bugs and bug tracking

Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 10/13/2015 08:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >Andres Freund writes: > >>On 2015-10-13 16:21:54 +0200, �lvaro Hern�ndez Tortosa wrote: > >>>(50 chars for the commit summary, 72 chars line wrapping) > > > >>-1 - imo 50 chars too often makes the commit

Re: [HACKERS] pam auth - add rhost item

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:01 PM, kolo hhmow wrote: > Wheter it would be a problem to set additional item (rhost) before > pam_authentication function in backend/libpq/auth.c? > It is very useful because you can restrict access to given ip address like > in mysql. > And this

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> - You consider pushing down ORDER BY if any prefix of the query >> pathkeys satisfy is_foreign_expr(), but that doesn't seem right to me. >> If the user says SELECT * FROM remotetab ORDER BY a, unsafe(a),

Re: [HACKERS] Database schema diff

On 13 October 2015 at 11:48, Michal Novotny wrote: > Hi guys, > > I would like to ask you whether is there any tool to be able to compare > database schemas ideally no matter what the column order is or to dump > database table with ascending order of all database

[HACKERS] Duda

Hola Tengo una duda, que tan pesado es poner ssl en una base. (me refiero si es mas pesado para el equipo usar esta conexión o es igual a una con ip en hba? Mil Gracias -- Saludos Enrique

Re: [HACKERS] pam auth - add rhost item

Yes, sorry. I was in hurry when I posted this message. I dont understand whay in CheckPAMAuth function only PAM_USER item is adding to pam information before authenticate? Wheter it would be a problem to set additional pam information like PAM_RHOST which is very useful because we can use this

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT ... ON CONFLICT documentation clean-up patch

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Attached documentation patch is intended to close-out the INSERT ... > ON CONFLICT documentation items from the 9.5 open item list. I also > attach a patch that makes a minor adjustment to an error message > concerning

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

This patch is marked as Ready for Committer in the CommitFest application. Here is my attempt to summarize the votes upthread: Tom Lane: plpgsql RAISE is sufficient; we don't need this. Pavel Stehule: could be replaced by custom function, but not against it. Robert Haas: plpgsql RAISE is

Re: [HACKERS] Duda

La lista de correo apropiada para tu consulta es pgsql-es-ayuda (pgsql-es-ayuda(at)postgresql(dot)org). Saludos, El 13 de octubre de 2015, 16:51, Enrique Escobar escribió: > Hola > Tengo una duda, que tan pesado es poner ssl en una base. (me refiero si es > mas pesado para

Re: [HACKERS] DTrace build dependency rules

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Mark Johnston wrote: > >> > The bug is in src/backend/Makefile. probes.o, the dtrace(1)-generated >> > object file, depends on the

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 10/13/2015 11:02 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> I thought that this feature for postgresql should be simple at first >> implementation. >> It would be good even if there are some restriction such as the >> nesting level,

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: > That wasn't my intention. Perhaps I'm overreacting to a long-standing > "Tom Lane's bucket of cold water" tradition. I'm new here. > I understand your point and I was only reiterating what in particular > makes the conf

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> Sounds like both the approaches have some pros and cons, also there are >> some people who prefer mini-language and others who prefer JSON.

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On 10/13/2015 11:02 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > I thought that this feature for postgresql should be simple at first > implementation. > It would be good even if there are some restriction such as the > nesting level, the group setting. > The another new approach that I came up with is, > * Add

Re: [HACKERS] bugs and bug tracking

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 08:39:16AM -0700, Joshua Drake wrote: > On 10/13/2015 08:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >Andres Freund writes: > >>On 2015-10-13 16:21:54 +0200, �lvaro Hern�ndez Tortosa wrote: > >>>(50 chars for the commit summary, 72 chars line wrapping) > > > >>-1 - imo 50

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/13/2015 09:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: >> That wasn't my intention. Perhaps I'm overreacting to a long-standing >> "Tom Lane's bucket of cold water" tradition. I'm new here. >> I understand your point and I was only

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

On 4 September 2015 at 04:50, Robert Haas wrote: > > Also: very nice performance results. > > Thanks. On following a thread in [General] [1] it occurred to me that this patch can give a massive improvement on Merge joins where the mark and restore causes an index scan to

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

Amir Rohan wrote: > On 10/14/2015 12:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Amir Rohan wrote: > > > >> I've been considering that. Reusing the parser would ensure no errors > >> are introduces by having a different implementation, but on the other > >> hand involving the pg build in installation what's

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

Amir Rohan wrote: > I've been considering that. Reusing the parser would ensure no errors > are introduces by having a different implementation, but on the other > hand involving the pg build in installation what's intended as a > lightweight, independent tool would hurt. > Because it's dubious

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:45 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > Attached is rebased patch for partial seqscan support. Review comments: - If you're going to pgindent execParallel.c, you need to add some entries to typedefs.list so it doesn't mangle the formatting.

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/14/2015 12:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Amir Rohan wrote: > >> I've been considering that. Reusing the parser would ensure no errors >> are introduces by having a different implementation, but on the other >> hand involving the pg build in installation what's intended as a >> lightweight,

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/14/2015 01:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Amir Rohan wrote: >> On 10/14/2015 12:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> Amir Rohan wrote: >>> I've been considering that. Reusing the parser would ensure no errors are introduces by having a different implementation, but on the other

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On October 13, 2015 11:14:19 PM GMT+02:00, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >Amir Rohan wrote: > >> I've been considering that. Reusing the parser would ensure no errors >> are introduces by having a different implementation, but on the other >> hand involving the pg build in

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v3] GSSAPI encryption support

Alright, here's v3. As requested, it's one patch now. Other things addressed herein include: - postgres.h/assert.h ordering fix - spacing around casts - leaking of GSS buffer in be_gss_inplace_decrypt - libpq-be.h not having a conditional internal include - always exposing guc veriable

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/14/2015 01:16 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On October 13, 2015 11:14:19 PM GMT+02:00, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Amir Rohan wrote: >> >>> I've been considering that. Reusing the parser would ensure no errors >>> are introduces by having a different implementation,

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:46:08AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > plpgsql_param_fetch() assumes that it can detect whether it's being > called from copyParamList() by checking whether params != > estate->paramLI. I don't know why this works, but I do know that this It works because PL/pgSQL creates

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

Hi, At Fri, 9 Oct 2015 18:18:52 +0530, Jeevan Chalke wrote in > I have noticed that, this thread started saying we are getting a crash > with the given steps with foreign_join_v16.patch, I am

Re: [HACKERS] Eclipse Help

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:49 AM, Praveen M wrote: > Hi All, > > I was able to follow the debugging of the child process using this link, > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Working_with_Eclipse > > As per the notes , I was able to set breakpoints and everything seem to be >

[HACKERS] remaining open items

We've got a few open items remaining at https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.5_Open_Items - we should try to get rid of them. Of the 8 items there, 3 are documentation issues. It looks to me like one of those is for Stephen to deal with, one for Andres, and one for Alvaro. Is there any

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

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > So there's still something to be desired on Windows; but it's still > better than before in that we can reliably detect child process exit > instead of having to use the five-second heuristic. And of course on > Unix this is