Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

On 2015/10/15 11:36, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: >>> Once again, if FDW driver is responsible to construct join-tuple from >>> the base relation's tuple cached in EPQ slot, this case don't need to >>> kick remote query again, because all the materials to construct join- >>> tuple are already held

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

> -Original Message- > From: Etsuro Fujita [mailto:fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp] > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 7:00 PM > To: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平); Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; shigeru.han...@gmail.com; > robertmh...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Foreign

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > I think this got messed up while rebasing on

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: 9.5 replication origins fix for logical decoding

On 15 October 2015 at 19:04, Andres Freund wrote: > As far as I can see all the other places have it assigned. Ok, thanks. Not much need for a followup patch then, if you're not using the test changes part. >>table public.origin_tbl: INSERT: id[integer]:6 data[text]:'from

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: 9.5 replication origins fix for logical decoding

On 2015-10-15 20:52:41 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > You'll note that the tests fail. When the replication origin is reset > and set again with pg_replication_origin_xact_setup mid-xact, the > origin identity exposed to the decoding plugin callbacks for all > records (including those created before

Re: [HACKERS] How to import PostgreSQL 9.2.4 dump to PostgreSQL 9.4.5?

Hi 2015-10-15 11:27 GMT+02:00 FattahRozzaq : > Hi guys, > > I'm running some test. > > > However, I'm stuck in restoring a PostgreSQL 9.2.4 dump to PostgreSQL > 9.4.5 database. > I'm doing the backup using pg_dump version PostgreSQL 9.2.4 in text > file (SQL dump). > I'm

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: > > The patch uses a factor of 1.1 (10% increase) to multiple the startup and > > total costs in fpinfo for unsorted data. > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I think this got messed up while rebasing on top of Gather node > changes, but nonetheless, I have changed it such that PartialSeqScan >

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

On 14 October 2015 at 06:34, Robbie Harwood wrote: > Alright, here's v3. As requested, it's one patch now. I hate to ask, but have you looked at how this interacts with Windows? We support Windows SSPI (on a domain-member host) authenticating to a PostgreSQL server using

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: 9.5 replication origins fix for logical decoding

On October 15, 2015 1:02:04 PM GMT+02:00, Craig Ringer wrote: >On 15 October 2015 at 17:43, Andres Freund wrote: > >>> I guess since it'll be InvalidRepOriginId otherwise, that makes >sense. >> >> That's not the point. XACT_XINFO_HAS_ORIGIN is about >>

Re: [HACKERS] How to import PostgreSQL 9.2.4 dump to PostgreSQL 9.4.5?

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:27 AM, FattahRozzaq wrote: > Hi guys, > > I'm running some test. > > > However, I'm stuck in restoring a PostgreSQL 9.2.4 dump to PostgreSQL > 9.4.5 database. > I'm doing the backup using pg_dump version PostgreSQL 9.2.4 in text > file (SQL dump). >

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > > I see no mention in this thread of varatt_indirect, but I anticipated > > datumSerialize() reacting to it the same way datumCopy() reacts. If

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: 9.5 replication origins fix for logical decoding

On 15 October 2015 at 17:43, Andres Freund wrote: >> I guess since it'll be InvalidRepOriginId otherwise, that makes sense. > > That's not the point. XACT_XINFO_HAS_ORIGIN is about > origin_lsn/timestamp, it doesn't have anything to do with the record > origin (which is

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

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Robbie Harwood wrote: > Alright, here's v3. As requested, it's one patch now. Other things > addressed herein include: > Essentially, the problem is that socket_putmessage_noblock() needs to > know the size of the message to put in the

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: 9.5 replication origins fix for logical decoding

On 15 October 2015 at 20:11, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 15 October 2015 at 19:04, Andres Freund wrote: > >> As far as I can see all the other places have it assigned. > > Ok, thanks. Not much need for a followup patch then, if you're not > using the test

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > 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

Re: [HACKERS] pam auth - add rhost item

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Euler Taveira wrote: > On 14-10-2015 17:35, kolo hhmow wrote: > >> Yes, but this is very ugly solution, becasue you have to restart >> postgresql daemon each time you have added a new user. >> > > > Restart != Reload. You can even do it

Re: [HACKERS] Typo in replorigin_sesssion_origin (9.5+)

On 14 October 2015 at 21:24, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Craig Ringer wrote: >> Hi all >> >> Before 9.5 goes final, lets change replorigin_sesssion_origin and >> replorigin_sesssion_origin_lsn to remove the extra 's'. > > Hmm? I already fixed this two weeks ago in >

[HACKERS] PATCH: 9.5 replication origins fix for logical decoding

Hi all There's an oversight in replication origins support in logical decoding, where the origin node ID isn't passed correctly to callbacks except for the origin filter callback. All other callbacks see it as InvalidRepOriginId. It's a one-line fix, but I've added support in test_decoding to

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: 9.5 replication origins fix for logical decoding

On 2015-10-15 16:02:23 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > There's an oversight in replication origins support in logical > decoding, where the origin node ID isn't passed correctly to callbacks > except for the origin filter callback. All other callbacks see it as > InvalidRepOriginId. Only for the

[HACKERS] How to import PostgreSQL 9.2.4 dump to PostgreSQL 9.4.5?

Hi guys, I'm running some test. However, I'm stuck in restoring a PostgreSQL 9.2.4 dump to PostgreSQL 9.4.5 database. I'm doing the backup using pg_dump version PostgreSQL 9.2.4 in text file (SQL dump). I'm trying to restore it to PostgreSQL 9.4.5 usng psql. The restoration error message was

Re: [HACKERS] Union All View execution

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Ivan Novick wrote: > Hi, > > If we have two queries, Query A and Query B that both return same columns. > > If we do Union All View will postgresql execute Query A and then Query B > sequentially? > > Does the work being discussed around

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

On 2015.10.14 at 14:47:46 +0200, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote: > > So what exactly would happen with this command: PGHOST=host1 psql -h host2 > > Or this one: PGHOST=host1 psql host=host2 The right thing - value of the PGHOST environment variable is ignored, and explicitely specified host is used.

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

Hello, I confirmed that an epqtuple of foreign parameterized scan is correctly rejected by fdw_recheck_quals with modified outer tuple. I have no objection to this and have two humble comments. In file_fdw.c, the comment for the last parameter just after the added line seems to be better to be

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: 9.5 replication origins fix for logical decoding

On 15 October 2015 at 16:48, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-10-15 16:02:23 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: >> There's an oversight in replication origins support in logical >> decoding, where the origin node ID isn't passed correctly to callbacks >> except for the origin filter

Re: [HACKERS] On-demand running query plans using auto_explain and signals

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Shulgin, Oleksandr < oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de> wrote: > > This is not a change of the direction, but rather of the approach. > Hitting a process with a signal and hoping it will produce a meaningful > response in all circumstances without disrupting its

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

On 2015.10.15 at 17:13:46 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 14 October 2015 at 18:41, Victor Wagner wrote: > > > 5. Added new parameter readonly=boolean. If this parameter is false (the > > default) upon successful connection check is performed that backend is > > not in the

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: 9.5 replication origins fix for logical decoding

On 2015-10-15 17:05:33 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 15 October 2015 at 16:48, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2015-10-15 16:02:23 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > >> There's an oversight in replication origins support in logical > >> decoding, where the origin node ID isn't passed

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

On 14 October 2015 at 18:41, Victor Wagner wrote: > 5. Added new parameter readonly=boolean. If this parameter is false (the > default) upon successful connection check is performed that backend is > not in the recovery state. If so, connection is not considered usable > and

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Table partition + join pushdown

Hello, Horiguchi-san. Sorry for late reply. > explain analyze > select data_x, data_y, num from check_test_div join inner_t on > check_test_div.id + 1 = inner_t.id; > > Makes the mutation fail then result in an assertion failure. > > | TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(list_length(check_constr) == >

Re: [HACKERS] Fix unclear comments in tablecmds.c

Amit Langote wrote: > Came across a couple of unclear comments about functions returning > ObjectAddress. Attached fixes them. Thanks, applied. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] Fix unclear comments in tablecmds.c

Amit Langote wrote: > Came across a couple of unclear comments about functions returning > ObjectAddress. Attached fixes them. Thanks, pushed to 9.5 and master. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Re: [HACKERS] More work on SortSupport for text - strcoll() and strxfrm() caching

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I wonder if it wouldn't be better to just add a separate Boolean >> indicating exactly the thing we care about. This doesn't seem >>

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > Tests of prm->prmtype and paramLI->paramFetch appear superfluous. Given that > the paramListCopyHook callback would return a complete substitute > ParamListInfo, I wouldn't expect SerializeParamList() to examine the the >

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

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-10-14 01:54:46 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: >> Andres, please see upthread for quite a bit on what it doesn't do, and >> why having it in the server is both an advantages and a shortcoming. > > As far as I have

Re: [HACKERS] Database schema diff

Hello, Michal. Take a look in MicroOLAP Database Designer for PostgreSQL. You may use it in such way: 1. Reverse Engineering for existent database 2. Apply some changes 3. Modify database - you will get SQL script with all changes http://microolap.com/products/database/postgresql-designer/ You

Re: [HACKERS] On-demand running query plans using auto_explain and signals

"Shulgin, Oleksandr" writes: > I was thinking about this and what seems to be the biggest problem is when > to actually turn the feature on. It seems unlikely that someone will want > to enable it unconditionally. Enabling per-backend also doesn't seem to be > a

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >> > I see no mention in this thread of varatt_indirect, but I

[HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permission denied”

 I’ve created 2 unprivileged users: user1 and user2; and registered 2 services thorough pg_ctl register respectively under these 2 users. If first service is running second could not start and vice versa. Dmitry Vasilyev Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com Russian Postgres

Re: [HACKERS] On-demand running query plans using auto_explain and signals

2015-10-15 15:42 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane : > "Shulgin, Oleksandr" writes: > > I was thinking about this and what seems to be the biggest problem is > when > > to actually turn the feature on. It seems unlikely that someone will > want > > to enable

Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permission denied”

I think that function dsm_impl_windows() with EACCES error should not do ereport() with FATAL level. It works, but it is likely to make an infinite loop if the user will receive EACCES error. On Чт, 2015-10-15 at 17:46 +0300, Dmitry Vasilyev wrote: >  I’ve created 2 unprivileged users: user1 and

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Optimize memory allocation in function 'bringetbitmap'

zhangjinyu wrote: > However I wonder if it would be simpler to have the dtup structure have > the pointers, so that you can pass it as NULL in the first call and then > followup calls reuse the one allocated in the first call. > Jinyu: the memory is allocated from perRangeCxt and

Re: [HACKERS] Obsolete use of volatile in walsender.c, walreceiver.c, walreceiverfuncs.c?

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: Right, see attached. >>> >>> It seems to

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Optimize memory allocation in function 'bringetbitmap'

Also, please make sure your patch is registered in https://commitfest.postgresql.org/7/ so that we don't forget. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

[HACKERS] TODO list updates

I have spend the past few days updating our TODO list, removing completed and now-unnecessary items: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo I encourage others to also update the list to make it more accurate. Thanks. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

On 2015/10/16 2:14, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:04 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: I confirmed that an epqtuple of foreign parameterized scan is correctly rejected by fdw_recheck_quals with modified outer tuple. I have no objection to this and

Re: [HACKERS] Obsolete use of volatile in walsender.c, walreceiver.c, walreceiverfuncs.c?

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >>> Right, see attached. >> >> It seems to me that we could as well simplify checkpoint.c and >> logical.c. In those files volatile

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

On 10/13/15 10:18 AM, Jinyu wrote: At 2015-10-12 23:46:12, "Jim Nasby" wrote: On 10/11/15 6:55 AM, Jinyu wrote: Are there other solutions to improve the concurency of vacuum full/cluster and select statement on the same relation? ISTM that if we were going to put

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

On 9/10/15 10:56 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >The only complaint I've seen in this thread that seems like a valid >deficiency is that RAISE can't deal with treating the error severity level >as a variable. But surely we should address that as a new RAISE feature, >not by inventing a SQL wrapper

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Haribabu Kommi >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:32

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:05:53PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > >> This wouldn't require any > >> modification to the current plpgsql_param_fetch() at all, but the new > >> function would steal its bms_is_member() test.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump LOCK TABLE ONLY question

On 10/7/15 6:44 AM, Filip Rembiałkowski wrote: Oct 2 2015 01:19 "Michael Paquier" > wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Filip Rembiałkowski > wrote: > > I

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Amit Kapila >> wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:29 AM,

[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permission denied”

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Dmitry Vasilyev wrote: > I think that function dsm_impl_windows() with EACCES error should not > do ereport() with FATAL level. It works, but it is likely to make an > infinite loop if the user will receive EACCES error. > > Currently

Re: [HACKERS] plpython is broken for recursive use

Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 10/15/2015 05:16 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 10/15/2015 01:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I think this means that we should get rid of proc->globals and instead >>> manufacture a new globals dict locally in each call to PLy_exec_function >>> or

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: 9.5 replication origins fix for logical decoding

On 15 October 2015 at 20:55, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-10-15 20:52:41 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: >> You'll note that the tests fail. When the replication origin is reset >> and set again with pg_replication_origin_xact_setup mid-xact, the >> origin identity exposed to the

Re: [HACKERS] Fix unclear comments in tablecmds.c

On 2015/10/16 0:21, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Amit Langote wrote: >> Came across a couple of unclear comments about functions returning >> ObjectAddress. Attached fixes them. > > Thanks, pushed to 9.5 and master. Thanks, Alvaro. Regards, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] plpython is broken for recursive use

On 10/15/2015 01:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I think this means that we should get rid of proc->globals and instead > manufacture a new globals dict locally in each call to PLy_exec_function > or PLy_exec_trigger. For SETOF functions it would be necessary to keep > the globals dict reference

Re: [HACKERS] snapshot too old, configured by time

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 12:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Kevin Grittner wrote: >> Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> I would place it inside src/test/modules, so that buildfarm >>> runs it automatically; I'm not sure it will pick up things in

[HACKERS] plpython is broken for recursive use

I looked into bug #13683, http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20151015135804.3019.31...@wrigleys.postgresql.org It looks to me like plpython basically doesn't work at all for re-entrant calls to plpython functions, because all executions of a given function share the same "globals" dict, which

Re: [HACKERS] plpython is broken for recursive use

On 10/15/2015 02:16 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: On 10/15/2015 01:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I think this means that we should get rid of proc->globals and instead manufacture a new globals dict locally in each call to PLy_exec_function or PLy_exec_trigger. For SETOF functions it would be necessary to

Re: [HACKERS] plpython is broken for recursive use

On 10/15/2015 05:16 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: On 10/15/2015 01:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I think this means that we should get rid of proc->globals and instead manufacture a new globals dict locally in each call to PLy_exec_function or PLy_exec_trigger. For SETOF functions it would be necessary to

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Haribabu Kommi < kommi.harib...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > > > > I am aware of that and

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

On 14 October 2015 at 04:01, Robert Haas wrote: > 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

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

2015-10-16 2:47 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby : > On 9/10/15 10:56 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> >The only complaint I've seen in this thread that seems like a valid >>> >deficiency is that RAISE can't deal with treating the error severity >>> level >>> >as a variable. But surely

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: 9.5 replication origins fix for logical decoding

On 16 October 2015 at 11:51, Craig Ringer wrote: > Document it as a "don't do that, if you do it you get to keep the pieces"? Thinking about this some more, having per-change origins makes sense when you're not using origin LSNs, such as when you're not replaying from

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permission denied”

Sorry, forgot to close the valid handle on return. > > Currently we are using error level as ERROR for creating dsm during > > postmaster startup which is not right and rather we should use error > > level as LOG. Can you please try with the attached patch and see > > if the issue is fixed for

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > [ new patch for heapam.c changes ] I went over this in a fair amount of detail and reworked it somewhat. The result is attached as parallel-heapscan-revised.patch. I think the way I did this is a bit cleaner than what

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permission denied”

Hello, > Currently we are using error level as ERROR for creating dsm during > postmaster startup which is not right and rather we should use error > level as LOG. Can you please try with the attached patch and see > if the issue is fixed for you. It seems somewhat strange. Looking into the

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Have dtrace depend on object files directly, not objfiles.txt

Robert Haas writes: > Have dtrace depend on object files directly, not objfiles.txt This patch appears to have broken parallel builds. I get this: $ make -j8 -s cat: access/objfiles.txt: No such file or directory cat: bootstrap/objfiles.txt: No such file or directory cat:

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Have dtrace depend on object files directly, not objfiles.txt

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> Have dtrace depend on object files directly, not objfiles.txt > > This patch appears to have broken parallel builds. I get this: > > $ make -j8 -s > cat: access/objfiles.txt: No

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:04 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > I confirmed that an epqtuple of foreign parameterized scan is > correctly rejected by fdw_recheck_quals with modified outer > tuple. > > I have no objection to this and have two humble comments. > > In

Re: [HACKERS] DTrace build dependency rules

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > 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

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Have dtrace depend on object files directly, not objfiles.txt

Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> This patch appears to have broken parallel builds. I get this: > Thanks for the report. I have reverted the patch. Problem's gone, so it definitely was that patch and not

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

Craig Ringer writes: > On 14 October 2015 at 06:34, Robbie Harwood wrote: >> Alright, here's v3. As requested, it's one patch now. > > I hate to ask, but have you looked at how this interacts with Windows? > > We support Windows SSPI (on a

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Have dtrace depend on object files directly, not objfiles.txt

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> This patch appears to have broken parallel builds. I get this: > >> Thanks for the report. I have

Re: [HACKERS] remaining open items

Robert Haas wrote: > - Oversize item computation needs more testing (c.f. ereport(ERROR) > calls in brin_getinsertbuffer). This is pretty vague, and there's no > thread linked. If there's a stability issue here, presumably it falls > to Alvaro to fix it. But I don't know who added this item or

Re: [HACKERS] Duda

2015-10-13 17:22 GMT-03:00 Rodolfo Campero : > 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 >>

[HACKERS] Union All View execution

Hi, If we have two queries, Query A and Query B that both return same columns. If we do Union All View will postgresql execute Query A and then Query B sequentially? Does the work being discussed around parallel query have the potential to parallely execute both parts of a Union All View? Also

Re: [HACKERS] remaining open items

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> What would happen if we didn't do anything at all? > > Nothing, really. It's essentially some code beautification. A worthwhile > goal, but certainly not a release blocker. While I agree with this assessment, I think

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Have dtrace depend on object files directly, not objfiles.txt

Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Curious that you didn't see something similar. Perhaps it depends on >> make version? But I spot-checked a couple of buildfarm critters and >> they both showed similar noise in

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: PL/Pythonu - function ereport

Hi 2015-10-09 15:22 GMT+02:00 Peter Eisentraut : > On 10/8/15 6:11 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > We cannot to raise PostgreSQL exception with setting all possible > > fields. > > Such as? If there are fields missing, let's add them. > > > I propose new function > > > >