On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
>> v38 is a simple rebase, trying to keep up-to-date with Tom's work.
>
>
> v39 is yet another rebase: 42 is in sight!
What's up with v42? Is that your personal record?
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@pos
At 2016-03-19 17:46:25 -0300, alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
>
> I don't think the first patch is acceptable standalone -- we need both
> things together.
OK.
> But in reality, pg_depend handling is mixed up with other changes all
> over the place.
Yes, I noticed that. :-/
> Anyway I think thi
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> OK, I have now committed 0001
I attach a revision of the external quicksort patch and supplementary
small patches, rebased on top of the master branch.
Changes:
1. As I mentioned on the "Improve memory management for external
sorts" -committ
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Andres Freund
wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On March 21, 2016 5:12:38 AM GMT+01:00, Amit Kapila <
amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The article pointed by you justifies that the way ResetEvent is done by
>> >patc
On 20/03/16 05:02, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Still to do: the non-perl pieces.
The patch to address locales is the sensitive part. The patch from
Petr is taking the correct approach though I think that we had better
simplify it a bit and if
On 19/03/16 23:02, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
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 seque
Hi,
On 2016-03-21 11:52:43 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> The contract that I invented here is that an async-aware parent node
> can ask any child node "are you ready?" and get back various answers
> including an fd which means please don't call ExecProcNode until this
> fd is ready to read. But a
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>
> On March 21, 2016 5:12:38 AM GMT+01:00, Amit Kapila <
> amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The article pointed by you justifies that the way ResetEvent is done by
> >patch is correct. I am not sure, but you can weigh, if there is a n
On March 21, 2016 5:12:38 AM GMT+01:00, Amit Kapila
wrote:
>The article pointed by you justifies that the way ResetEvent is done by
>patch is correct. I am not sure, but you can weigh, if there is a need
>of
>comment so that if we want enhance this part of code (or want to write
>something si
OK cool, thanks.
Can we remove the minimum size limit when the per table degree setting is
applied?
This would help for tables with 2 - 1000 pages combined with a high CPU
cost aggregate.
Cheers,
James Sewell,
PostgreSQL Team Lead / Solutions Architect
__
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 7:13 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> 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 <
amit.kapil...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >> >Won't the new code needs
Another skim on 0002:
reference.sgml is missing a call to &alterStatistic.
ObjectProperty[] contains a comment that the ACL is "same as relation",
but is that still correct, given that now stats may be related to more
than one relation? Do we even know what the rules for ACLs on
cross-relation s
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Robert Haas
wrote:
> >> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Amit Kapila
> >> wrote:
> >> > Won't in theory, without patch as well nentries can overflow
Haribabu Kommi wrote:
> > Check.
> >
> > +} lookup_hba_line_context;
> > ^ but why TAB here?
>
> corrected. I am not sure why pg_indent is adding a tab here.
It's because lookup_hba_line_context is not listed in typedefs.list.
I suggest adding it and all other new typedefs you add, and rerun
On 21 March 2016 at 15:48, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> David Rowley wrote:
>
>> I've rewritten the comment to become:
>>
>> /*
>> * Providing that the estimated size of the hashtable does not exceed
>> * work_mem, we'll generate a HashAgg Path, although if we were unable
>> * to sort above, then we'd
David Rowley wrote:
> I've rewritten the comment to become:
>
> /*
> * Providing that the estimated size of the hashtable does not exceed
> * work_mem, we'll generate a HashAgg Path, although if we were unable
> * to sort above, then we'd better generate a Path, so that we at least
> * have one.
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 2:23 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
>
> I've had a look over this. I had to first base it on the 0005 patch,
> as it seemed like the pg_aggregate.h changes didn't include the
> serialfn and deserialfn changes, and an OID was being consumed by
> another function I added in patch 00
On 3/17/16 5:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Pavel Stehule writes:
I'll mark this patch as ready for commiters.
I started to look at this patch. It seems to me that the format of the
errorCode output is not terribly well designed.
...
Maybe there's another way. I've not used Tcl in anger since aro
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Shulgin, Oleksandr
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Shulgin, Oleksandr
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > You mean change context name and correct the comment? I didn't suggest
>> > to
>> > change the func
Hi,
On 03/21/2016 12:30 AM, David Rowley wrote:
On 21 March 2016 at 09:47, Tomas Vondra wrote:
...
I'm not sure changing the meaning of enable_hashagg like this is a
good idea. It worked as a hard switch before, while with this
change that would not be the case. Or more accurately - it would
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Amit Kapila
>> wrote:
>> > Won't in theory, without patch as well nentries can overflow after
>> > running
>> > for very long time? I think with patch i
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> This is mostly a flex/bison hack, isn't it? If you like I'll take it.
>
>> I would be delighted if you would.
>
> I've committed changes equivalent to Horiguchi-san's
On 21 March 2016 at 09:47, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 03/20/2016 09:58 AM, David Rowley wrote:
>> Thank you for the reviews. The only thing I can think to mention which
>> I've not already is that I designed estimate_hashagg_tablesize() to be
>> reusable in various places in planner.c, yet I've only
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I worry that something weird could happen there. For example, perhaps
> the page LSN on what is actually a newly recycled page could be set
> such that the backend following a stale right spuriously raises a
> "snapshot too old" error.
I m
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> New patch just to merge in recent commits -- it was starting to
> show some bit-rot. Tests folded in with main patch.
I haven't read the patch, but I wonder: What are the implications here
for B-Tree page recycling by VACUUM? I know that y
>> Many trailing white spaces found.
>
> Sorry, haven't noticed that after one of the rebases. Fixed in the
> attached v15 of the patch.
There are still few of traling spaces.
/home/t-ishii/0002-shared-infrastructure-and-functional-dependencies.patch:3792:
trailing whitespace.
/home/t-ishii/000
On 3/17/16 9:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I think that
there are an awful lot of cases where extension authors haven't been
able to quite do what they want to do without core changes because
they couldn't get control in quite the right place; or they could do
it but they had to cut-and-paste a lot o
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-03-21 01:31:30 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> I couldn't get the second patch to apply for some reason,
>
> Weird? Even efter appying the first one first?
>
>
>> but I have been trying out your "latch" branch on some different OSs
>> a
On 3/19/16 11:32 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hi,
On 03/19/2016 06:29 AM, John Snow wrote:
There is no any long transaction neither prepared transaction.
Can you show us pg_stat_activity? Particularly the xmin values for
backends attached to the two databases mentioned in the log (1 and 12451).
F
I was upgrading a cluster, went on the IRC channel to clarify a few things,
the following discussion ensued:
yuri_niyazov: Hi. I am trying to upgrade to 9.5. The instructions for
pg_upgrade include the following bit:
[4:35pm] yuri_niyazov: "Again, use compatible initdb flags that match the
old clu
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 05:04:08PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 03/19/2016 07:34 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 06:12:12PM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> >>On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:36 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Please find attached a patch that uses the float8
v38 is a simple rebase, trying to keep up-to-date with Tom's work.
v39 is yet another rebase: 42 is in sight!
--
Fabien.diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml
index c6d1454..4ceddae 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.s
Hi,
On 03/20/2016 04:48 AM, David Rowley wrote:
On 17 March 2016 at 14:25, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 03/16/2016 12:03 PM, David Rowley wrote:
Patch 2:
This adds the serial/deserial aggregate infrastructure, pg_dump
support, CREATE AGGREGATE changes, and nodeAgg.c changes to have it
serialise and
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-03-21 01:31:30 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> I couldn't get the second patch to apply for some reason,
>
> Weird? Even efter appying the first one first?
Ah, I was using patch -p1. I needed to use git am, which understands
how to re
Hi
2016-03-19 16:31 GMT+01:00 Alvaro Herrera :
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> > Can I do review?
>
> Of course.
>
I did review of last patch. I had to do small changes to run the code due
last Tom's changes in psql. Updated patch is attached.
The last changes in this patch are two:
1. Remove stran
Hi,
On 03/20/2016 09:58 AM, David Rowley wrote:
On 20 March 2016 at 03:19, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:32 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
Updated patch is attached.
I think this looks structurally correct now, and I think it's doing
the right thing as far as parallelism is concer
On 03/20/2016 12:02 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Still to do: the non-perl pieces.
The patch to address locales is the sensitive part. The patch from
Petr is taking the correct approach though I think that we had better
simplify it a bit
> Do you have an updated patch ready?
No, I'm afraid it will not be ready for Monday.
On Sunday, March 20, 2016, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> * Allow backslash commands to span lines, probably by adopting the
> rule that backslash immediately followed by newline is to be ignored
> within a backslash command. This would not be compatible with psql,
> though, at least not unless we wanted t
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is mostly a flex/bison hack, isn't it? If you like I'll take it.
> I would be delighted if you would.
I've committed changes equivalent to Horiguchi-san's 0001 and 0002
patches, though rather different in detail.
-Hackers,
The twitter verse has picked up on the fact that some of the comments in
our source code are gendered. We may want to apply a patch for that.
Sincerely,
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Cente
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Rahila Syed wrote:
>>Sorta. Committed after renaming what you called heap blocks vacuumed
>>back to heap blocks scanned, adding heap blocks vacuumed, removing the
>>overall progress meter which I don't believe will be anything close to
>>accurate, fixing some styl
Hi,
On 03/09/2016 09:29 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Hello, thank you for the comments. The new v8 patch is attched.
I've looked at v8, and I do have a few minor comments:
1) indxpath.c uses get_plan_rowmark without including optimizer/prep.h
so the compiler complains about missing prototype
* Christian Ullrich wrote:
* From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:mag...@hagander.net]
I don't like the name "real_realm" as a parameter name. I'm wondering if
it might be better to reverse the meaning, and call it sspi_netbios_realm
(and then change the default to on, to be backwards compatible).
On 2016-03-18 05:56:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> 0 at the top of the loop and skip it forthwith if so.
> >
> > You mean in WaitEventSetWait()? There's
> > else if (rc == 0)
> > {
> > break;
> > }
> > which is the timeout c
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am testing postgres_fdw join pushdown feature for PostgreSQL 9.6 DB, and I
> observed below issue.
>
> Observation: If do a left outer join on foreign tables more than two times.
> It is causing the server crash.
>
> Added be
On 2016-03-21 01:31:30 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I couldn't get the second patch to apply for some reason,
Weird? Even efter appying the first one first?
> but I have been trying out your "latch" branch on some different OSs
> and porting some code that does a bunch of waiting on many sockets
"Shulgin, Oleksandr" writes:
> On Mar 20, 2016 01:09, "Dmitrii Golub" wrote:
>> Alex, actually subdomain can start with digit,
> Not according to the RFC you have linked to.
The powers-that-be relaxed that some time ago; I assume there's a newer
RFC. For instance, "163.com" is a real domain:
Hi,
On 03/01/2016 05:08 PM, Roma Sokolov wrote:
On 27 Feb 2016, at 03:46, Euler Taveira wrote:
Because it is not a common practice to test catalog dependency on
separate tests (AFAICS initial catalogs are tested with oidjoins.sql).
Also, your test case is too huge for such a small use case.
I
On 2016-03-18 14:40:33 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Oops. Thanks for the report. Does this fix it?
>
> Trying again to attach the patch.
Yes, that removes the warning, and looks correct.
Andres Freund
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > That doesn't update the cost of the subpath, which it probably needs to
> > do. I wonder if this shouldn't be implemented by recursing.
>
> > if (IsA(path, GatherPath) && !has_parallel_hazard((Node *) target->exprs,
> >
Aleksander Alekseev writes:
> I'm quite sure that there is no need to initialize these variables
> twice. First patch fixes this. Also I discovered that policy.c is not
> properly pgindent'ed. Second patch fixes this too.
Applied the first patch --- though I chose to do it the other way
(keep the
On 2/29/16 10:33 AM, Artur Zakirov wrote:
> Conclusion
> --
>
> This patch is large and it needs more research. I will be reviewing it
> and will give another notes later.
This thread has not had a response from the authors or new patch in more
than two weeks. Please post something soon
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 one being that it's not
>>> clear whether it should descen
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:40 AM, David G. Johnston
> wrote:
>> Adding -hackers for consideration in the Commitfest.
>
> I don't much like how this patch uses the arbitrary constant 50 in no
> fewer than 5 locations.
>
> Also, it seems like we
On 16/03/2016 17:16, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Julien Rouhaud
> mailto:julien.rouh...@dalibo.com>> wrote:
>
> On 15/03/2016 21:12, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:25 PM, David Rowley
> > mailto:david.row...@2ndquadrant.com>>
> 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 aggregate does not have a DISTINCT or
+ * ORDER BY clause, a
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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
On 18 March 2016 at 10:13, James Sewell wrote:
> This does bring up an interesting point I don't quite understand though. If I
> run parallel agg on a table with 4 rows with 2 workers will it run on two
> workers (2 rows each) or will the first one grab all 4 rows?
It works on a per page basis,
On 2016-03-17 09:01:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > * Right now the caller has to allocate the WaitEvents he's waiting for
> > locally (likely on the stack), but we also could allocate them as part
> > of the WaitEventSet. Not sure if that'd be a benefit.
>
> I'm not seeing this. What do you
Hi
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 or zero. Historically, the
system call would not return an
On 3/17/16 7:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Chapman Flack writes:
It seems that a typmod can only be used restrict the set of possible
values of the unmodified type (as clearly seen in the language "length
conversion cast", since certainly a typmod allowing { string | length < N }
is doing nothing but
On 20 March 2016 at 03:19, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:32 PM, David Rowley
> wrote:
>> Updated patch is attached.
>
> I think this looks structurally correct now, and I think it's doing
> the right thing as far as parallelism is concerned. I don't see any
> obvious problems i
Hi everyone!
Trying to make VACUUM FREEZE on PG instance and keep getting this error:
2016-03-18 05:56:51 UTC 46750 WARNING: oldest xmin is far in the past
2016-03-18 05:56:51 UTC 46750 HINT: Close open transactions soon to
avoid wraparound problems.
2016-03-18 05:56:51 UTC 46750 DEBUG:
I don't see any objection, is consensus reached? I'm close to comiit
that...
I did only cursory review on the bloom contrib module and don't really have
complaints there, but I know you can review that one. I'd like the English of
the generic_xlog.c description improved but I won't get to it
> On Mar 17, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> Per the twitter verse, here is an updated version of primnodes.h
> --
> Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
>+1-503-667-4564
> PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and
2016-03-18 16:26 GMT+01:00 Teodor Sigaev :
> I hope so the messages are ok now. Few more regress tests added.
>>
>
> Thank you, committed.
Thank you very much
Pavel
>
>
> --
> Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru
>
I wrote:
> I had almost gotten to the point of being willing to commit this patch
> when I noticed that it fails to fix the originally-complained-of-problem:
> ...
> AFAICS the only way that we can avoid a dump/reload hazard is to tighten
> up the allowed range of timestamps by at least one day, so
On Mar 20, 2016 01:09, "Dmitrii Golub" wrote:
>
> 2016-03-14 16:22 GMT+03:00 Shulgin, Oleksandr <
oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de>:
>>
>> In fact, the 123-yyy.zzz domain is not valid either according to the RFC
(subdomain can't start with a digit), but since we already allow it, should
we not allow 1
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 overhead. I'm not sure that that's worth changing
>> tho
On 16 March 2016 at 23:32, David Steele wrote:
> On 3/10/16 1:24 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
>
>> New patch for Alvaro's consideration.
>>
>> Very minor changes since the last time, the explanations below are
>> literally longer than the changes:
>> - Rebased, though I don't think any
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> > Won't in theory, without patch as well nentries can overflow after
running
> > for very long time? I think with patch it is more prone to overflow
because
> > we start borrowing from
On 12 February 2016 at 04:55, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Is it slower if you request N workers, yet only 1 is available?
>
> I sure hope so. There may be some cases where more workers are slower
> than fewer workers, but those cases are defects t
73 matches
Mail list logo
