Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Michael Paquier < > michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Magnus Hagander >> wrote: >> > In particular, it seems that in InitWalSenderSlot, we only initialize the >>> sen

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

Hello, At Thu, 26 Nov 2015 05:04:32 +, Kouhei Kaigai wrote in <9a28c8860f777e439aa12e8aea7694f801176...@bpxm15gp.gisp.nec.co.jp> > > On 2015/11/24 2:41, Robert Haas wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Kouhei Kaigai > > > wrote: > > >> One subplan means FDW driver run an entire j

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Reload SSL certificates on SIGHUP

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > On 08/26/2015 07:46 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote: [...] So I think the way to move this forward is t

Re: [HACKERS] COPY (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE .. RETURNING ..)

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > Attached the test case I used; removing a batch of old rows from a table > through an index. Best out of three runs, I get 13.1 seconds versus 15.0 > seconds, which should amount to an improvement of around 12.7%. Thanks for the test case.

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

Hello, sorry for late response and thank you for the new patch. At Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:05:38 +, Taiki Kondo wrote in <12a9442fbae80d4e8953883e0b84e08863f...@bpxm01gp.gisp.nec.co.jp> > > I created v3 patch for this feature, and v1 patch for regression tests. > Please find attached. I think

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

> -Original Message- > From: Etsuro Fujita [mailto:fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp] > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:45 PM > To: Robert Haas; Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平) > Cc: Tom Lane; Kyotaro HORIGUCHI; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Shigeru Hanada > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown

Re: [HACKERS] What .gitignore files do in the tarball?

Euler Taveira writes: > +1 to remove all of those files. Meh. We've always shipped that stuff; before git, we shipped .cvsignore files, and there were no complaints about it, going back twenty years at this point. If the files amounted to anything meaningful space-wise, I would agree, but as th

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On 24-11-2015 13:35, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: > News about CMake: > I built postgres, initdb, createdb, psql, pg_ctl using CMake. > After make install you can run initdb after run postgres after createdb and > use it by psql. Only for Linux now and realy bugy (and the code is very dirt) > but it wo

Re: [HACKERS] What .gitignore files do in the tarball?

On 25-11-2015 10:40, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Victor Wagner > wrote: > > I've noticed that source distribution archive of the postgresql contain > more than hundred of .gitignore files and one .gitattributes. > > Is it

[HACKERS] parallel joins, and better parallel explain

Attached find a patch that does (mostly) two things. First, it allows the optimizer to generate plans where a Nested Loop or Hash Join appears below a Gather node. This is a big improvement on what we have today, where only a sequential scan can be parallelized; with this patch, entire join probl

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On 25 November 2015 at 17:41, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: > > > Many prewritten CMake modules fail to follow basic practices that make > them > > work anywhere but where the author wanted/needed. > Now everything is much better. And it is worth split "make" and > configuration. > CMake better GNU Mak

[HACKERS] Redefine default result from PQhost()?

Currently, libpq's PQhost() function will return NULL if the connection is using the default Unix-socket connection address. This seems like a pretty dubious definition to me. psql works around it in several places with host = PQhost(pset.db); if (host == NULL)

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: multiple psql option -c

Hi 2015-11-25 17:13 GMT+01:00 Catalin Iacob : > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Catalin Iacob > wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> 1. -c no longer implies --no-psqlrc. That's a backwards > incompatibility, > >> but very easy to explain and very easy to work arou

Re: [HACKERS] Using quicksort for every external sort run

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:10 AM, Greg Stark wrote: > That's precisely why it's valuable to see a whole series of data > points rather than just one. Often when you see the shape of the > curve, especially any breaks or changes in the behaviour that helps > understand the limitations of the model.

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

Greg Stark writes: > It's a reasonable idea for mailing list software to put the list in > Sender given that it's the "agent responsible for the actual > transmission of the message" as RFC2822 specifies. Right. > But my point was that while the RFC says what to put there there's > absolutely no

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in numeric multiplication

Dean Rasheed writes: > On 24 November 2015 at 16:20, Tom Lane wrote: >> ... None of these effects are going to let the final div[qi+1] value >> get to more than two or three times NBASE squared, which is still >> an order of magnitude less than INT_MAX. > Right. In fact I think div[qi+1] is even

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

It's a reasonable idea for mailing list software to put the list in Sender given that it's the "agent responsible for the actual transmission of the message" as RFC2822 specifies. But you could just as easily argue that the list is just relaying the message and the agent actually transmitting the m

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in numeric multiplication

On 24 November 2015 at 16:20, Tom Lane wrote: > After further thought I've pretty well convinced myself that there is > indeed no observable bug, at least as long as you assume that overflow > within the multiplication will behave as stated above. The proof goes > like this: > > We already know t

Re: [HACKERS] GIN pending list clean up exposure to SQL

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote: > On 12 August 2015 at 20:19, Jeff Janes wrote: >> >> But where does this belong? Core? Its own separate extension? >> > > I will say core. Gin indexes are in core and i don't see why this > function shouldn't. > FWIW, brin indexes has a si

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: multiple psql option -c

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Catalin Iacob wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> 1. -c no longer implies --no-psqlrc. That's a backwards incompatibility, >> but very easy to explain and very easy to work around. >> >> 2. You can have multiple -c and/or -f. Each -c is

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

Greg Stark writes: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think that would put us in a situation where DKIM signatures would still >> pass, at least unless the source insisted on signing Sender: too. > Incidentally I'm confused about your concern about Sender. Sender has > almos

Re: [HACKERS] What .gitignore files do in the tarball?

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Victor Wagner wrote: >> I've noticed that source distribution archive of the postgresql contain >> more than hundred of .gitignore files and one .gitattributes. >> >> Is it just a bug nobody bothered to fix

Re: [HACKERS] What .gitignore files do in the tarball?

Victor Wagner wrote: > Collegues, > > I've noticed that source distribution archive of the postgresql contain > more than hundred of .gitignore files and one .gitattributes. > > Is it just a bug nobody bothered to fix, or these files can make > any sense outside git repository? I agree they are

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Magnus Hagander > wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Magnus Hagander >> wrote: >> >>> Are the values for the log locations really relevant for backup >>> connections? And if they are, we

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Magnus Hagander > wrote: > >> Are the values for the log locations really relevant for backup >> connections? And if they are, we need to document it :) ISTM we are just >> more or less leaking random d

Re: [HACKERS] custom function for converting human readable sizes to bytes

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: > Should read " isn't a valid size value" http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/error-style-guide.html#AEN110918 | Contractions. Avoid contractions, like "can't"; use "cannot" instead. So " is not a valid size value" would be better. --

Re: [HACKERS] pageinspect patch, for showing tuple data

В письме от 25 ноября 2015 22:27:57 пользователь Michael Paquier написал: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Nikolay Shaplov > wrote: > > В письме от 18 ноября 2015 15:52:54 пользователь Michael Paquier написал: > > Teodor Sigaev asked a very good question: does it properly do upgrade from > > 1.

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improve pageinspect module

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: > contrib/pageinspect/Makefile |6 +- > contrib/pageinspect/heapfuncs.c | 271 > +++-- > contrib/pageinspect/pageinspect--1.3.sql | 189 > contrib/pageinspect/pageinspect--1

Re: [HACKERS] What .gitignore files do in the tarball?

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Victor Wagner wrote: > I've noticed that source distribution archive of the postgresql contain > more than hundred of .gitignore files and one .gitattributes. > > Is it just a bug nobody bothered to fix, or these files can make > any sense outside git repository?

Re: [HACKERS] pageinspect patch, for showing tuple data

Teodor Sigaev asked a very good question: does it properly do upgrade from 1.3 to 1.4 I've rechecked and fixed here is a patch. Committed, thank you. -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru WWW: http://www.

Re: [HACKERS] pageinspect patch, for showing tuple data

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > В письме от 18 ноября 2015 15:52:54 пользователь Michael Paquier написал: > Teodor Sigaev asked a very good question: does it properly do upgrade from > 1.3 > to 1.4 > > I've rechecked and fixed > What was actually the problem? I have to

[HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Client Log Output Filtering

Currently log messages generated by pgaudit can be made visible to the client simply by altering client_min_messages. While this has not been a showstopper for anyone it's ideal, either. The client authentication code sets the global variable ClientAuthInProgress which causes ereport() to fil

Re: [HACKERS] Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > >> Michael Paquier wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Alvaro Herrera < >> alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> > > This looks

Re: [HACKERS] pageinspect patch, for showing tuple data

В письме от 18 ноября 2015 15:52:54 пользователь Michael Paquier написал: Teodor Sigaev asked a very good question: does it properly do upgrade from 1.3 to 1.4 I've rechecked and fixed here is a patch. > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 3:10 AM, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > > Everything seems to be ok. I'v

Re: [HACKERS] pageinspect patch, for showing tuple data

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: > - bits_len = tuphdr->t_hoff - > - offsetof(HeapTupleHeaderData, t_bits); > + int bits_len = > + ((tuphdr->t_infomask2 & HEAP_NATTS_MASK) / 8 + > 1) * 8; > >

Re: [HACKERS] pageinspect patch, for showing tuple data

- bits_len = tuphdr->t_hoff - - offsetof(HeapTupleHeaderData, t_bits); + int bits_len = + ((tuphdr->t_infomask2 & HEAP_NATTS_MASK) / 8 + 1) * 8; As I understand offline comments of Nikolay, current version of pag

Re: [HACKERS] pam auth - add rhost item

Well, this is not matter since pam_set_item expect this argument as a string. Besides there is not always possible to get map from ip address to hostname. So hostname is just a synonim for whatever information you cat get about remote machine. ps. sorry for delay answer. On 11/16/2015 04:24 AM, P

Re: [HACKERS] New email address

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I think that would put us in a situation where DKIM signatures would still > pass, at least unless the source insisted on signing Sender: too. Incidentally I'm confused about your concern about Sender. Sender has almost no significance for emai

Re: [HACKERS] Using quicksort for every external sort run

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:31 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > There already was a test case involving a 1TB/16 billion tuple sort > [1] (well, a 1TB gensort Postgres table [2]). Granted, I don't have a > large number of similar test cases across a variety of scales, but > there are only so many hour

Re: [HACKERS] Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW

On 13 May 2015 at 04:10, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > On 2015/05/13 0:55, Stephen Frost wrote: >> >> Etsuro, >> >> * Etsuro Fujita (fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: >>> >>> Here is an updated version. In this version, the bug has been >>> fixed, but any regression tests for that hasn't been added, b

Re: [HACKERS] problem with msvc linker - cannot build orafce

2015-11-24 11:33 GMT+01:00 Kisung Kim : > 2015-11-24 8:12 GMT+09:00 Chapman Flack : > >> On 11/23/15 15:14, Tom Lane wrote: >> > Lack of PGDLLIMPORT on the extern declaration, no doubt. >> > >> > The fact that we've not heard this before implies that either nobody has >> > ever tried to use orafce

Re: [HACKERS] problem with msvc linker - cannot build orafce

2015-11-23 21:14 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane : > Pavel Stehule writes: > > I am trying to build Orafce and I have problem due access to exported > > variable session_timezone. > > Any idea what can be broken? > > Lack of PGDLLIMPORT on the extern declaration, no doubt. > > The fact that we've not heard th

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Are the values for the log locations really relevant for backup > connections? And if they are, we need to document it :) ISTM we are just > more or less leaking random data out there? > > I'm talking about the actual state=backup connect

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On Wednesday 25 November 2015 13:27:33 you wrote: > That was years ago, mind, but I > haven't seen CMake exactly taking over the world since then. KDE, MariaDB, neovim and etc. New projects usually selected CMake. > Many prewritten CMake modules fail to follow basic practices that make them > wor

[HACKERS] pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups

Are the values for the log locations really relevant for backup connections? And if they are, we need to document it :) ISTM we are just more or less leaking random data out there? I'm talking about the actual state=backup connection - not the connection if we're using -x with pg_basebackup. Where

Re: [HACKERS] pg_hba_lookup function to get all matching pg_hba.conf entries

2015-11-25 8:05 GMT+01:00 Haribabu Kommi : > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 11/16/15 2:37 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > >>> On 7/21/15 5:15 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > With the output of this view

Re: [HACKERS] Revisiting pg_stat_statements and IN() (Was: Re: pg_stat_statements fingerprinting logic and ArrayExpr)

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > One specific justification he gave for not using pg_stat_statements was: > > "Doesn’t merge bind vars in IN()" (See slide #11) > > I wonder: > > * How do other people feel about this? Personally, I've seen enough > problems of this kind i