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

Hi, At Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:40:24 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote in <8ad11fae-1cb7-2255-d80c-d1daafb53...@2ndquadrant.com> > FWIW the break was restored in the v9 by me. Yeah, I know it. Sorry for the misleading comment. > > FWIW, as mentioned upthread, I added the

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

Craig Ringer wrote: If we eventually get a CMake build system conversion that'll mostly go away too. I'm working on it. But the build system does not solve the problem of some hacks. We must nevertheless spend more time for Windows or at least goes to mingw64 (like ActivePerl). -- Yury

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

On 2016-03-31 00:17:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Craig Ringer writes: > > On 31 March 2016 at 07:49, Josh berkus wrote: > >> So, can we stop supporting Windows native now? > > > Why would we want to? > > > The cost is small. > > Surely you jest.

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

On 2016-03-31 09:04:35 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > The cost is small. First off I agree we don't want to drop proper windows support. But I think "the cost is small" is a pretty bad mischaracterization. I don't do windows, and yet I've spent a lot of time figuring out windows only stuff, even

Re: [HACKERS] Missing mention of GSSAPI in MSVC's config_default.pl

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Applied, thanks. Thanks. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlogdump fails to handle WAL file with multi-page XLP_FIRST_IS_CONTRECORD data

On 2016-03-31 09:41:46 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > > > > > > Can you describe the process used to generate the sample WAL segment? > > > > > Shame that I can't find the sql file used to create the problematic WAL >

Re: [HACKERS] Very small patch for decode.c

On 2016-03-30 23:44:00 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > > diff --git a/src/backend/replication/logical/decode.c > > b/src/backend/replication/logical/decode.c > > index 2380ea2..a992662 100644 > > --- a/src/backend/replication/logical/decode.c > > +++

Re: [HACKERS] Correction for replication slot creation error message in 9.6

On 2016-03-31 10:15:21 +0900, Ian Barwick wrote: > Hi > > Currently pg_create_physical_replication_slot() may refer to > the deprecated wal_level setting "archive": > > postgres=# SHOW wal_level ; >wal_level > --- >minimal > (1 row) > > postgres=# SELECT

Re: [HACKERS] Timeline following for logical slots

Hi, On 2016-03-31 08:52:34 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 31 March 2016 at 07:15, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > > Available attached or at > > > > > https://github.com/2ndQuadrant/postgres/tree/dev/logical-decoding-timeline-following > > > > And pushed this too. > >

Re: [HACKERS] Relation extension scalability

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Amit Kapila > wrote: > >> Yes, that makes sense. One more point is that if the reason for v13 >> giving better performance is extra blocks (which we

Re: [HACKERS] raw output from copy

2016-03-31 9:48 GMT+02:00 Craig Ringer : > On 31 March 2016 at 14:40, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > >> this patch doesn't break any old application. Accepting new feature >> depends on binary method detection. PQbinaryTuples based clients should >> to

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v1] GSSAPI encryption support

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > [long review] Note as well that I have switched the patch as "waiting on author" for the time being. Missing symbols on Windows as well as crashes are pointing out that this should be returned with feedback for

Re: [HACKERS] Performance degradation in commit 6150a1b0

On March 31, 2016 7:16:33 AM GMT+02:00, Noah Misch wrote: >On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 01:10:56AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 02:15:50PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: >> > On 2016-03-27 02:34:32 +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: >> > > As mentioned in my earlier

Re: [HACKERS] Suspicious behaviour on applying XLOG_HEAP2_VISIBLE.

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 01:04:11AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> As a result of looked into code around the recvoery, ISTM that the >> cause is related to relation cache clear. >> In heap_xlog_visible, if the standby

Re: [HACKERS] raw output from copy

On 31 March 2016 at 14:40, Pavel Stehule wrote: > this patch doesn't break any old application. Accepting new feature > depends on binary method detection. PQbinaryTuples based clients should > to support COPY RAW* without problems, PQfformat() should to report >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v1] GSSAPI encryption support

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote: >> A new version of my GSSAPI encryption patchset is available, both in >> this email and on my github: >>

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

On 2016/03/31 14:07, Noah Misch wrote: On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 01:02:57PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote: On 2016/03/24 11:14, Michael Paquier wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Thom Brown wrote: I've noticed that you now can't cancel a query if there's DML pushdown to a

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

On 31 March 2016 at 05:04, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: > The documentation changes still has to be fixed. > Thanks for help. Looks like I'm not so good at text formulation. Fixed. > Moreover it seems the logic in the code is correct No - I see now, that I made the same

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

On 03/31/2016 01:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Kevin Grittner writes: I'm taking my name off as committer and marking it "Ready for Committer". If someone else wants to comment on the issues where Tom and Kyotaro-san still seem unsatisfied to the point where I can get my head

Re: [HACKERS] raw output from copy

2016-03-31 8:34 GMT+02:00 Craig Ringer : > On 30 March 2016 at 00:19, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Pavel Stehule writes: >> > I tested COPY RAW on old psql clients - and it is working without any >> > problem - so when the client uses

Re: [HACKERS] raw output from copy

On 30 March 2016 at 00:19, Tom Lane wrote: > Pavel Stehule writes: > > I tested COPY RAW on old psql clients - and it is working without any > > problem - so when the client uses same logic as psql, then it should to > > work. Sure, there can be

Re: [HACKERS] raw output from copy

Hi 2016-03-29 20:59 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane : > Pavel Stehule writes: > > I am writing few lines as summary: > > > 1. invention RAW_TEXT and RAW_BINARY > > 2. for RAW_BINARY: PQbinaryTuples() returns 1 and PQfformat() returns 1 > > 3.a for RAW_TEXT:

<    1   2