Re: [HACKERS] pgbench stats per script & other stuff

Hello Jeff, So I wanted to do something like: for f in `seq 0 5 100`; do pgbench -T 180 -c8 -j8 -b tpcb-like@$f -b select-only@100 done; But, I'm not allowed to specify a weight of zero. Indeed. I did not envision such a use case, but it is quite legitimate and interesting! I would hope t

Re: [HACKERS] Performance degradation in commit ac1d794

On 2016-03-17 09:40:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > I'll look at 0005 next, but thought I would send these comments along first. > > 0005: This is obviously very much WIP, but I think the overall > direction of it is good. > 0006: Same. > >

Re: [HACKERS] Show dropped users' backends in pg_stat_activity

Robert Haas writes: > Gee, I would have expected the DROP to be blocked until the user > disconnected, like we do for DROP DATABASE. Making that race-condition-free would require some notion of a lock on roles, I think. Seems pretty messy compared to the amount of actual value obtained. There a

Re: [HACKERS] Choosing parallel_degree

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > On 16/03/2016 17:55, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Julien Rouhaud >> wrote: >>> Something like a "min_parallel_degree" then ? >> >> Why not just parallel_degree without any prefix? As in, when scanning >> this tab

Re: Pushdown target list below gather node (WAS Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Upper planner pathification)

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Looks pretty close. One point is that if we do end up using a Result >>> node, then the parent GatherPath does not get charged for the Result >>> node's cpu_per_tuple o

[HACKERS] Patch: typo, s/espaced/escaped/

There is a typo in one word in this commit: http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=9a206d063c410df7cd5da01b169b23bff413fef5 Patch attached. -- Best regards, Aleksander Alekseev http://eax.me/ diff --git a/contrib/unaccent/generate_unaccent_rules.py b/contrib/unaccent/

Re: [HACKERS] Choosing parallel_degree

Julien Rouhaud writes: > Shouldn't we also check "parallel_degree < max_worker_process" ? > There's no need to compute any further than that. I think the best fix > would be to add a CheckHook or AssignHook on max_parallel_degree GUC to > make sure it's not more than max_worker_process. Please,

Re: [HACKERS] Make primnodes.h gender neutral

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:34 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: > If we do this how many new developers are we expecting to subscribe to the > -hackers list and make serious contributions - say, by reviewing the large > backlog of patches we presently have? I would certainly welcome even one new contr

Re: [HACKERS] fd.c doesn't remove files on a crash-restart

On 2016-03-16 11:02:09 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>3. The problem can get worse over time. If you have a very long running > >>instance, any time the backend crash-restarts you have to potential to > >>increase disk space used for no purpose. > > > >But I think these outweigh the debugging be

Re: [HACKERS] Performance degradation in commit ac1d794

On 2016-03-19 18:45:36 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-03-19 16:44:49 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > > > > > > Attached is a significantly revised version of the earlier series. Most > > > importantly I have: > > > * Unified the wi

[HACKERS] [PATCH v8] GSSAPI encryption support

Hello friends, A new version of my GSSAPI encryption patchset is available, both in this email and on my github: https://github.com/frozencemetery/postgres/tree/feature/gssencrypt8 What changed: - Fixed fallback in the new server/old client case. The server flag checking has been reduced. In

Re: [HACKERS] VS 2015 support in src/tools/msvc

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 03/08/2016 07:40 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 1:07 AM, Andrew Dunstan >> wrote: >>> >>> Michael's patch proposes to replace the use of sed to generate probes.h >>> with >>> the perl equivalent everywhere. T

Re: [HACKERS] initdb: introduce PG_CMD_PRINTF intestead of PG_CMD_PRINTF{1,2,3}

Alexander Kuleshov writes: > The src/bin/initdb/initdb.c provides three macros to write data to > cmdfd. All of these macro do the same, but with different amount of > arguments for fprintf(). > Attached patch introduces PG_CMD_PRINTF macro which will take set of > variadic arguments via __VA_ARG

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 6:38 PM, David Steele wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On 3/14/16 7:07 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:32 PM, David Steele wrote: >>> Could you provide an updated set of patches for

Re: [HACKERS] improving GROUP BY estimation

On 18 March 2016 at 00:37, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> On Sun, 2016-03-13 at 15:24 +, Dean Rasheed wrote: >>> I think that a better formula to use would be >>> >>> reldistinct *= (1 - powl(1 - rel-rows / rel->tuples, rel->tuples / >>> reldistinct) > > Attached is a v3 of the patch using this formul

Re: [HACKERS] [PATH] Jsonb, insert a new value into an array at arbitrary position

> I still don't like that this works on path leading to an object given that we can't fulfill the promise of inserting to an arbitrary position there. I'm thinking about this following way - `jsonb_insert` is just a function to insert a new value, which has specific options to enforce arbitrary po

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 18 March 2016 at 13:39, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Tomas Vondra > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 03/17/2016 12:53 PM, David Rowley wrote: >>> >> ... >>> >>> >>> I just had a quick skim over the patch and noticed the naming >>> convention you're using for the combine func

Re: [HACKERS] Make primnodes.h gender neutral

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I think it's important that we fix these issues in a way that doesn't > degrade the readability of the prose, and that doesn't call attention > to itself as "hey, we're being so politically correct!". We're trying > to convey technical informati

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] speeding up GIN build with parallel workers

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Constantin S. Pan wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 18:08:38 +0530 > Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > > Why backend just waits, why can't it does the same work as any worker > > does? In general, for other parallelism features the backend also > > behaves the same way as

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On 17 March 2016 at 01:19, Amit Kapila wrote: > Few assorted comments: > > 1. > /* > + * Determine if it's possible to perform aggregation in parallel using > + * multiple worker processes. We can permit this when there's at least one > + * partial_path in input_rel, but not if the query has gro

Re: [HACKERS] fd.c doesn't remove files on a crash-restart

On 03/16/2016 11:04 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2016-03-16 11:02:09 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: 3. The problem can get worse over time. If you have a very long running instance, any time the backend crash-restarts you have to potential to increase disk space used for no purpose. But I think

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Integer overflow in timestamp[tz]_part() and date/time boundaries check

On 2016-03-16, Tom Lane wrote: > My feeling is we ought to preserve the old behavior here, which would > involve making JULIAN_MAXYEAR_FOR_TIMESTAMPS format-dependent and > adjusting the float values for the two derived constants; not much of a > problem code-wise. I think though that it would br

Re: [HACKERS] btree_gin and btree_gist for enums

On 03/18/2016 09:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 03/17/2016 06:44 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Here is a patch to add enum support to btree_gin and btree_gist. I didn't include distance operations, as I didn't think it terribly important, and

Re: [HACKERS] Make primnodes.h gender neutral

On 03/17/2016 02:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: "Joshua D. Drake" writes: On 03/17/2016 01:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: +1 what? Are you saying this patch is good? I don't think it is: the previous sentence is written in third person, and the following ones are currently in third person, but the pat

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

Hi Michael, On 3/14/16 7:07 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:32 PM, David Steele wrote: >>> Could you provide an updated set of patches for review? Meanwhile I am >>> marking this as "waiting for author". >> >> S

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

On 3/9/16 3:29 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Hello, thank you for the comments. The new v8 patch is attched. As far as I can see this patch should be marked "ready for review" so now it is. Thanks, -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresq

Re: [HACKERS] Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers

On 03/15/2016 01:17 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: I have updated the comments and changed the name of one of a variable from "all_trans_same_page" to "all_xact_same_page" as pointed out offlist by Alvaro. I have done a run, and don't see any regressions. Intel Xeon 28C/56T @ 2GHz w/ 256GB + 2 x RAI

Re: [HACKERS] Choosing parallel_degree

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > Something like a "min_parallel_degree" then ? Why not just parallel_degree without any prefix? As in, when scanning this table in parallel, the reloption suggests using N workers. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Re: [HACKERS] Make primnodes.h gender neutral

On 03/17/2016 01:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Per the twitter verse, here is an updated version of primnodes.h +1. +1 what? Are you saying this patch is good? I don't think it is: the previous sentence is written

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - allow backslash-continuations in custom scripts

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:12 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Thank you for the comment, but could you please tell me what kind > of criteria should I take to split this patch? The discussion > about splitting criteria is in the following reply (in the > sentence begins with "By the way"). Well, I'

Re: [HACKERS] Performance degradation in commit ac1d794

On 2016-03-16 15:08:07 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > How about the following sketch of an API > > > > typedef struct LatchEvent > > { > > uint32 events; /* interesting events */ > > uint32 revents; /* returned events */ > >

Re: [HACKERS] Make primnodes.h gender neutral

Chapman Flack writes: > On 03/17/16 17:29, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> A grep with a quick skim of the results to exclude references to >> particular people who are mentioned by name and then referred to >> with a pronoun (which I assume we can leave alone), suggest there >> are about 70 lines in the

Re: [HACKERS] Idle In Transaction Session Timeout, revived

2016-03-16 17:54 GMT+01:00 Vik Fearing : > On 03/16/2016 05:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > > Committed with slight changes to the docs, and I added a flag variable > > instead of relying on IdleInTransactionSessionTimeout not changing at > > an inopportune time. > > Thank you! > great, important f

Re: [HACKERS] Performance degradation in commit ac1d794

On 2016-03-19 16:44:49 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > > > Attached is a significantly revised version of the earlier series. Most > > importantly I have: > > * Unified the window/unix latch implementation into one file (0004) > > > > Afte

Re: [HACKERS] Performance degradation in commit ac1d794

On 2016-03-19 15:43:27 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > On March 18, 2016 11:52:08 PM PDT, Amit Kapila > wrote: > > >> >Won't the new code needs to ensure that ResetEvent(latchevent) > > >should > > >> >get > > >> >called in case WaitForMu

Re: [HACKERS] Performance degradation in commit ac1d794

On 2016-02-08 17:49:18 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > How about allowing registration of a callback for every waiting > socket. The signature of the callback function would be like I don't think a a callback based API is going to serve us well. Most of the current latch callers would get notice

Re: [HACKERS] Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization

On 15/03/16 05:03, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: Petr, The attached patch is the revised one that follows the new extensible- node routine. It is almost same the previous version except for: - custom-apis.[ch] was renamed to custom-node.[ch] - check for the length of custom-scan-method name followed

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

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > 1. Creates a separate memory context for tuplesort's copies of > caller's tuples, which can be reset at key points, avoiding > fragmentation. Every SortTuple.tuple is allocated there (with trivial > exception); *everything else*, including

Re: [HACKERS] 2016-03 Commitfest

On 3/18/16 11:25 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote: The COPY RAW patch seems to have two entries in the commitfest. https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/223/ and https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/547/ Are those about the same patch? Indeed they are - good catch! I've responded on the thread and c

Re: [HACKERS] Performance degradation in commit ac1d794

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I'll look at 0005 next, but thought I would send these comments along first. 0005: This is obviously very much WIP, but I think the overall direction of it is good. 0006: Same. I think you should use PGINVALID_SOCKET rather than -1 in various

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

Hi! On 03/15/2016 06:59 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: The set of patches I am proposing here does not go through those code paths, and this is likely an aggregate failure. Michael, you were right. It was incorrect installation of contrib binaries. Now all tests pass OK, both check-world and inst

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Phrase search ported to 9.6

Hi, Artur I've made an attempt to fix some of the issues you've listed, although there's still much work to be done. I'll add some comments later. > This function has the duplicated piece from the tsvector_setweight() > from tsvector_op.c. You can define new function for it. I'm not sure it's w

Re: [HACKERS] fd.c doesn't remove files on a crash-restart

On 03/16/2016 10:56 AM, Andres Freund wrote: I understand that this is designed this way. I think it is a bad idea because: 1. The majority crash-restarts in the wild are going to be diagnosed rather easily within the OS itself. They fall into things like OOM killer and out of disk space. I d

Re: [HACKERS] fd.c: flush data problems on osx

Hi, On 2016-03-17 20:09:53 +0300, Stas Kelvich wrote: > Current implementation of pg_flush_data when called with zero offset and zero > nbytes is assumed to flush all file. In osx it uses mmap with these > arguments, but according to man: > > "[EINVAL] The len argument was negative o

Re: [HACKERS] GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Yury Zhuravlev wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> >>> On 2/11/16 9:30 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: ... >> >> >> We need to decide what to do about this. I disagree with Peter: I >> think that regardless of

Re: [HACKERS] Performance degradation in commit ac1d794

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> > - Given current users we don't need a large amount of events, so having >> > to iterate through the registered events doesn't seem bothersome. We >> > could however change the api to be something like >> > >> > int WaitLatchEventSet(

Re: [HACKERS] async replication code

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:30 PM, otheus uibk wrote: > I will ask again: where in the code is the asynchronous replication code? > The docs are not detailed/exact enough. > > Nevermind. Thomas Munro answered my question in the General list. Quoting: > Look for WalSndWakeupRequest() in xlog.c, whi

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Only try to push down foreign joins if the user mapping OIDs mat

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Ashutosh Bapat < > > ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> In 9.5, postgres_fdw allowed to prepare statements involving foreign > >> tables without an associated user mapping as lo

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Request - repeat value of \pset title during \watch interations

David Steele writes: > On 3/17/16 5:07 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: >> Figured out it had to be added to 2016-09...done > Hmm ... this patch is currently marked "needs review" in CF 2016-03. Am > I missing something, should this have been closed? The message I saw was post-1-March. If it was i

Re: [HACKERS] POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes

Hi Teodor, Sadly the v4 does not work for me - I do get assertion failures. For example with the example Andreas Karlsson posted in this thread: CREATE EXTENSION btree_gin; CREATE TABLE test (a int, b int, c int); CREATE INDEX ON test USING gin (a, b, c); INSERT INTO test SELECT i % 7, i % 9,

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Only try to push down foreign joins if the user mapping OIDs mat

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Ashutosh Bapat < ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > Now what's going on here? It seems to me that either postgres_fdw >> requires a user mapping (in which case this ought to fail) or it >> doesn't (in which case this ought to push the join down). I don't

Re: [HACKERS] unexpected result from to_tsvector

I found the discussion about allowing an underscore in emails http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/200908281359.n7sdxfaf044...@wwwmaster.postgresql.org That bug report is about recognizing an underscore in the local part of an email. And is not about recognizing an underscore in a domain name.

Re: [HACKERS] IF (NOT) EXISTS in psql-completion

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: >> Hello, this is the new version of this patch. > > The CommitFest entry for this patch is messed up. It shows no author, > even though I'm pretty sure that a patch has to have one

Re: [HACKERS] Make primnodes.h gender neutral

"Joshua D. Drake" writes: > On 03/17/2016 01:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> +1 what? Are you saying this patch is good? I don't think it is: the >> previous sentence is written in third person, and the following ones are >> currently in third person, but the patch changes the following sentence

Re: Pushdown target list below gather node (WAS Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Upper planner pathification)

Robert Haas writes: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> And there is a larger problem with this: I'm not sure that it's >> appropriate for apply_projection_to_path to assume that the subpath is not >> shared with any other purposes. If it is shared, and we update the >> subpat

Re: [HACKERS] fd.c doesn't remove files on a crash-restart

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" writes: >> Hello, >> fd.c[1] will remove files from pgsql_tmp on a restart but not a >> crash-restart per this comment: > >> /* >> * NOTE: we could, but don't, call this during a post-backend-crash restart >> * cycle. The argum

Re: [HACKERS] unexpected result from to_tsvector

2016-03-14 16:22 GMT+03:00 Shulgin, Oleksandr : > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Artur Zakirov > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> On 07.03.2016 23:55, Dmitrii Golub wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Should we added tests for this case? >>> >> >> I think we should. I have added tests for teo...@123-

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

On 2016/03/10 2:56, Robert Haas wrote: I see that you went and changed all of the places that tested for != CMD_SELECT and made them test for == CMD_INSERT || == CMD_UPDATE || == CMD_DELETE instead. I think that's the wrong direction. I think that we should use the != CMD_SELECT version of the

Re: [HACKERS] Make primnodes.h gender neutral

WIP patch to comments and documentation. Note that I ignored the release notes, as I don't know if it is appropriate to change those retrospectively. A few of the changes make the prose worse and will likely be rejected, but I included the best change that came to mind as a starting point for c

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 17 March 2016 at 16:30, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:08 PM, David Rowley > wrote: >> On 16 March 2016 at 23:54, Haribabu Kommi wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:34 AM, David Rowley >>> wrote: Yes me too, so I spent several hours yesterday writing all of the

Re: [HACKERS] Refactoring speculative insertion with unique indexes a little

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > Sure, and if everybody does that, then there will be 40 patches that > get updated in the last 2 days if the CommitFest, and that will be > impossible. Come on. You're demanding a degree of preferential > treatment which is unsupportable. I

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Upper planner pathification

> Robert Haas writes: > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Robert Haas writes: > >>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Kouhei Kaigai > >>> wrote: > So, even though we don't need to define multiple hook declarations, > I think the hook invocation is needed just aft

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improve memory management for external sorts.

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-03-17 20:11:00 +, Robert Haas wrote: >> Improve memory management for external sorts. >> >> Introduce a new memory context which stores tuple data, and reset it >> at the end of each merge pass; this helps avoid memory fragmentati

Re: [HACKERS] Performance degradation in commit ac1d794

Hi, On 2016-03-17 09:01:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > 0001: Looking at this again, I'm no longer sure this is a bug. > Doesn't your patch just check the same conditions in the opposite > order? Yes, that's what's required > 0004: > > + * drain it everytime WaitLatchOrSocket() is used.

Re: [HACKERS] Performance degradation in commit ac1d794

Andres Freund wrote: > From 1d444b0855dbf65d66d73beb647b772fff3404c8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Andres Freund > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 00:52:07 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 4/5] Combine win32 and unix latch implementations. > > Previously latches for windows and unix had been implemented in > d

Re: [HACKERS] POC: Cache data in GetSnapshotData()

On 2016-03-16 13:29:22 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > Whoa. At 64 clients, we're hardly getting any benefit, but then by 88 > clients, we're getting a huge benefit. I wonder why there's that sharp > change there. What's the specifics of the machine tested? I wonder if it either correlates with the

Re: [HACKERS] Sequence Access Method WIP

On 3/4/16 11:09 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > But first here is updated patch for sequence access methods. I went with > the previously discussed custom type as this gives us proper control > over the width of the state and making sure that it's not gonna be > toastable, etc and we need this as sequen

Re: [HACKERS] 2016-03 Commitfest

We are now nearly two thirds of the way through the 2016-03 Commitfest. There are still some patches left that need review but have no reviewer (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/?status=1&reviewer=-2) and this hasn't changed much since last week. Needs review: 55 (was 56 last week) Needs *r

Re: [HACKERS] VS 2015 support in src/tools/msvc

On 03/08/2016 07:40 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 1:07 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Michael's patch proposes to replace the use of sed to generate probes.h with the perl equivalent everywhere. That has the advantage that we keep to one script to generate probes.h, but it does

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On 3/17/16 11:55 AM, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:41 AM, David Steele >wrote: > >> Not sure I agree. My point was that even if developers were pretty >> careful with their casting (or are using two actual dates) then there's >> still possibili

Re: [HACKERS] Make primnodes.h gender neutral

> On Mar 17, 2016, at 5:40 PM, Mark Dilger wrote: > > >> On Mar 17, 2016, at 5:05 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Alvaro's original complaint that the sentences no longer agree as to >>> person is on-point. >> >> That's reasonable. Still

[HACKERS] async replication code

Greetings, I am new here. Apologetic question: how can i search the archives of this mailing list? Is there some set of magic words to put in Google? Must I wade through 20 pages of hits? Should I download all the archives and grep? :) Main question: I want to understand very precisely the exac

Re: [HACKERS] raw output from copy

On 3/12/16 1:24 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: Great, thank you very much. I hope so this feature really useful. It allow to simple export/import XML doc in different encodings, JSONs and can be enhanced future via options. The nice feature (but not for this release) can be additional cast info for i

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench stats per script & other stuff

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Fabien wrote: > > This patch adds per-script statistics & other improvements to pgbench > > Rationale: Josh asked for the per-script stats:-) > > Some restructuring is done so that all stats (-l --aggregate-interval > --progress --per-script-stats, latency & lag...

Re: [HACKERS] FIX : teach expression walker about RestrictInfo

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Tomas Vondra >> wrote: >>> On 04/29/15 18:26, Tom Lane wrote: But there are basic reasons why expression_tree_walker should not try to deal with RestrictInfos; the most obvious o

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

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I spent some time looking at this part of the patch yesterday and >> today. > > Thanks for getting back to it. OK, I have now committed 0001, and separately, some comment improvements

Re: [HACKERS] extend pgbench expressions with functions

v38 is a simple rebase, trying to keep up-to-date with Tom's work. -- Fabien.diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml index dd3fb1d..cf9c1cd 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml @@ -802,9 +802,10 @@ pgbench options dbn

Re: [HACKERS] Sequence Access Method WIP

Petr Jelinek wrote: > And finally the 0003-gapless-seq is example contrib module that implements > dependably and transitionally safe gapless sequence access method. It's > obviously slow as it has to do locking and basically serialize all the > changes to sequence so only one transaction may use

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On 19 March 2016 at 06:15, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:16 AM, David Rowley > wrote: >> I've attached an updated patch. > > This looks substantially better than earlier versions, although I > haven't studied every detail of it yet. > > + * Partial aggregation requires that each

Re: [HACKERS] Relaxing SSL key permission checks

Committed with the discussed adjustment and documentation update. On 3/18/16 2:26 PM, Christoph Berg wrote: > Re: Peter Eisentraut 2016-03-16 <56e8c221.1050...@gmx.net> * it failed to check for S_IXUSR, so permissions 0700 were okay, in contradiction with what the error message indicates

Re: [HACKERS] Make primnodes.h gender neutral

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Debating whether or not somebody is currently upset about this, and > how upset the are, and what the value is of fixing it is missing the > point. When somebody sends a patch for a typographical error, we > don't say: well, we could fix that

Re: [HACKERS] Performance degradation in commit ac1d794

On 2016-01-14 12:07:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2016-01-14 11:31:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> I think your idea of a data structure the encapsulates a set of events >

Re: [HACKERS] eXtensible Transaction Manager API (v2)

On 3/16/16 7:59 AM, Stas Kelvich wrote: > On 12 Mar 2016, at 13:19, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> IMO this is not committable as-is, and I don't think that it's something >>> that will become committable during this 'fest. I think we'd be well

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning

Hi Alexander, Thanks a lot for taking a look! On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > I tried to apply your patch. It still applies, but has some duplicate oids. Actually, a reworked version I will post hopefully early next week will have fixed this. > After fixing dupli

Re: [HACKERS] Make primnodes.h gender neutral

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Per the twitter verse, here is an updated version of primnodes.h +1. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To m

Re: [HACKERS] Relaxing SSL key permission checks

Committed with the discussed adjustment and documentation update. On 3/18/16 2:26 PM, Christoph Berg wrote: > Re: Peter Eisentraut 2016-03-16 <56e8c221.1050...@gmx.net> * it failed to check for S_IXUSR, so permissions 0700 were okay, in contradiction with what the error message indicates

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > David Steele writes: > > On 3/17/16 11:30 AM, David G. Johnston wrote: > >> ​I'd call it "generate_dates(...)" and be done with it. > >> We would then have: > >> generate_series() > >> generate_subscripts() > >> generate_dates() > > > To me thi

Re: [HACKERS] Make primnodes.h gender neutral

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Chapman Flack wrote: > For those of us who are outside of the twitterverse sort of on purpose, > are there a few representative links you could post? Maybe this is such > fresh breaking news Google hasn't spidered it yet, but I didn't find > any reference to the pr

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] pgbench -C -M prepared gives an error

> It's certainly a bug that the combination of the switches doesn't work, > and I already fixed it (47211af17a). My question was more towards > whether -C is a useful benchmarking option at all. I cannot imagine > a situation in which, if someone said "I'm doing only one transaction per > session

Re: [HACKERS] dealing with extension dependencies that aren't quite 'e'

Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: > At 2016-01-18 11:08:19 +0530, a...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: > > > > I'm proposing to address a part of that problem by allowing extension > > dependencies to be explicitly declared for functions and objects > > created either by a user or dynamically by the extension itself

Re: [HACKERS] Speedup twophase transactions

On 1/26/16 3:39 PM, Stas Kelvich wrote: Agree, I had the same idea in my mind when was writing that script. I will migrate it to TAP suite and write a review for Michael Paquier's patch. Stas Kelvich Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company On 26 Jan 201

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On 18 March 2016 at 20:25, Amit Kapila wrote: > Few more comments: > > 1. > > + if (parse->groupClause) > + path = (Path *) create_sort_path(root, > + grouped_rel, > + path, > + root->group_pathkeys, > + -1.0); > > For final path, why do you want to sort just for group by case? If there's no GROU

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Request - repeat value of \pset title during \watch interations

David Steele writes: > On 3/17/16 7:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> The message I saw was post-1-March. If it was in fact submitted in >> time for 2016-03, then we owe it a review. > I meant to add the CF record and forgot: > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/480 > It was added 2016-01-13 by Michael

Re: [HACKERS] Performance degradation in commit ac1d794

Hi, On 2016-03-16 15:41:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> > - Given current users we don't need a large amount of events, so having > >> > to iterate through the registered events doesn't seem bothersome. We > >> > could however change t

Re: [HACKERS] Make primnodes.h gender neutral

> On Mar 17, 2016, at 5:05 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Alvaro's original complaint that the sentences no longer agree as to >> person is on-point. > > That's reasonable. Still, there are only a few existing instances of > gendered pronouns

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On 17 March 2016 at 18:05, David Rowley wrote: > Updated patch attached. Please disregard 0001-Allow-aggregation-to-happen-in-parallel_2016-03-17.patch. This contained a badly thought through last minute change to how the Gather path is generated and is broken. I played around with ways of gener

Re: [HACKERS] Choosing parallel_degree

On 17/03/2016 12:21, David Rowley wrote: > On 18 March 2016 at 00:13, Julien Rouhaud wrote: >> With the current threshold, you need a table bigger than 8 MB to be able >> to force parallel workers. I'm not sure there'll be benefits for >> multiple workers on a table smaller than 8 MB, since settin

Re: [HACKERS] Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 3:09 AM, Alexander Korotkov < > a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > >> I've drawn graphs for these measurements. The variation doesn't look >> random here. TPS is going higher from measurement to measurement. I bet

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl promote wait

Hi Peter, On 3/9/16 3:08 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Here are some comments about 0002 <...> > I think that we had better do something like the attached first. > Thoughts? It's been a week since Michael reviewed this patch. Could you please comment on his proposed changes as soon as possible?

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 6:49 AM, David Rowley wrote: > On 16 March 2016 at 15:04, Robert Haas wrote: >> I don't think I'd be objecting if you made PartialAggref a real >> alternative to Aggref. But that's not what you've got here. A >> PartialAggref is just a wrapper around an underlying Aggref

  1   2   3   4   >