On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> On 1/26/17 4:49 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> Sorry, I attached wrong version patch of pg_fdw_xact_resovler. Please
>>> use attached patch.
>>
>> So in some other thread we are
2017-01-25 12:09 GMT+05:00 Andrew Borodin :
> 2017-01-24 22:29 GMT+05:00 Jeff Davis :
>> By the way, can you show me where the Lehman and Yao paper addresses
>> page recycling?
>
> Here J. Hellerstein comments L&Y paper [1] saying that effectively
> there is no deletion algorithm provided.
> Here [
Mmm..
At Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:52:20 +0800, Craig Ringer
wrote in
> On 28 Jan. 2017 02:08, "Tom Lane" wrote:
>
> Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes:
> > By the way the existing comment for the hook,
>
> >> *
> >> * We provide a function hook variable that lets loadable plugins get
> >> * control when P
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> In connection with the "pg_hba_file_settings view patch" thread, I was
> wondering where we could logically insert a regression test case for that
> view. I realized that there is no natural home for it among the existing
> regression tests, beca
Hello, this is the revised version of character conversion using radix tree.
At Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:33:57 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
<20170127.173357.221584433.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> Hi, this is an intermediate report without a patch.
>
> At Thu, 26 Jan
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 3:43 AM, David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 5:28 AM, Rushabh Lathia
> wrote:
>
>> Consider the below test;
>>
>> CREATE TABLE tab ( a int primary key);
>>
>> SELECT *
>> FROM pg_constraint pc,
>> CAST(CASE WHEN pc.contype IN (
On 2017-01-27 22:20:41 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/27/17 6:11 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2017-01-27 09:09:36 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> My preferred scenario would be to replace the Windows build system by
> >> this first, then refine it, then get rid of Autoconf.
> >>
> >>
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 1/27/17 6:11 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2017-01-27 09:09:36 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> My preferred scenario would be to replace the Windows build system by
>>> this first, then refine it, then get rid of Autoconf.
>>>
>>>
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> tgl wrote:
>> > I spent awhile hacking on this, and made a lot of things better, but
>> > I'm still very unhappy about the state of the comments.
>>
>> I made another pass over this, work
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 2:49 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 1/25/17 11:57 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> @@ -15984,6 +15992,9 @@ dumpSequence(Archive *fout, TableInfo *tbinfo)
>> "CREATE SEQUENCE %s\n",
>> fmtId(tbinfo->dobj.name));
>>
>> + if (strcmp
Hello,
Please consider following comments on the patch.
In function ParseVariableNum,
> if (!val || !val[0])
> return false;
Check for 'val == NULL' as in above condition is done even in callers of
ParseVariableNum().
There should be only one such check.
>+ psql_error("Invalid valu
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> In connection with the "pg_hba_file_settings view patch" thread, I was
> wondering where we could logically insert a regression test case for that
> view. I realized that there is no natural home for it among the existing
> regression tests, beca
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2017-01-28 08:47:03 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> > wrote:
> > > On 1/26/17 2:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > >> I do not think it can be right to rename the directory and not
> > >> anything els
Jim,
* Jim Nasby (jim.na...@bluetreble.com) wrote:
> On 1/29/17 4:44 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> >>On 1/26/17 1:25 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >>>That should include the ability to dump all objects, yet without any
> >>>security details.
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 1/26/17 4:49 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> Sorry, I attached wrong version patch of pg_fdw_xact_resovler. Please
>> use attached patch.
>
> So in some other thread we are talking about renaming "xlog", because
> nobody knows what the "x
On 1/29/17 4:44 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 1/26/17 1:25 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
That should include the ability to dump all objects, yet without any
security details. And it should allow someone to setup logical
replication easily, in
On 1/29/17 2:35 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
I'm wondering what pg would do on "EXISTS(SELECT 1 FROM customer)" if
there are many employees. [...]
I believe that the scan stops on the first row it finds, because the
EXITS() clause is met.
Hmmm... That is not so clear from "EXPLAIN" output:
You
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I spent awhile hacking on this, and made a lot of things better, but
> > I'm still very unhappy about the state of the comments.
>
> I made another pass over this, working on the comments and the docs,
> and changing the view name to
From: Amit Kapila [mailto:amit.kapil...@gmail.com]
> Hmm. It doesn't work even on a command prompt with administrative
> privileges. It gives below error:
>
> waiting for server to start2017-01-17 11:20:13.780 IST [4788] FATAL:
> could not create shared memory segment: error code 1450
> 2017-
On 2017/01/29 0:11, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 1/26/17 4:49 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
Sorry, I attached wrong version patch of pg_fdw_xact_resovler. Please
use attached patch.
So in some other thread we are talking about renaming "xlog", because
nobody knows what the "x" means. In the spirit
Working on the tests for new SP-GiST opclasses for polygons and circles, I've
found a bug in the SP-GiST box_ops (added in 9.6): some operators
(&<, &>, $<|, |&>) have wrong tests in spg_box_quad_inner_consistent().
This obviously leads to incorrect results of a SP-GiST index scan (see tests
in th
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 1/26/17 1:25 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > That should include the ability to dump all objects, yet without any
> > security details. And it should allow someone to setup logical
> > replication easily, including both trigger based and
On 2017-01-28 08:47:03 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
> > On 1/26/17 2:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> I do not think it can be right to rename the directory and not
> >> anything else.
> >
> > I think this is the root of the confusion.
>
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 12:43 PM, David Steele wrote:
> The problem I have with aliases is that they would need to be done across
> the board. At the least, we would need function aliases, symlinks for the
> binaries (which would rneed to be done by the packagers), aliases for the
> command line
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 05:52:51PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:39 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 08:50:27AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:31 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> > Frankly, I get quite tired of the argument essent
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:39 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 08:50:27AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:31 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > Frankly, I get quite tired of the argument essentially being made
>> > here that because pg_ls_dir() wouldn't grant so
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 08:50:27AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:31 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Frankly, I get quite tired of the argument essentially being made
> > here that because pg_ls_dir() wouldn't grant someone superuser
> > rights, that we should remove superuser
On 28 January 2017 at 05:04, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
>> I agree that special handling of one join type is not so pretty.
>> However, LEFT JOINs still remain a bit special as they're the only
>> ones we currently perform join removal on, and the patch modifies that
>> code to make u
Hi,
On 2017-01-29 16:02:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I did not do anything about testing the various pg_stat_xxx views.
> Those could be added later, or maybe they deserve their own home.
> (In many cases, those would need something smarter than the basic
> count(*) technique used here, because the
On 27 January 2017 at 03:53, Robert Haas wrote:
> Sorry, this had slipped through the cracks -- I'm having a very hard
> time keeping up with the flow of patches and emails. But it looks
> good to me, except that it seems like CountDBBackends() needs the same
> fix (and probably a corresponding d
In connection with the "pg_hba_file_settings view patch" thread, I was
wondering where we could logically insert a regression test case for that
view. I realized that there is no natural home for it among the existing
regression tests, because it's not really connected to any SQL language
feature.
>
> My point is that examples about one thing can be interpreted as example
> for other things which is also done in the example, so it is better to do
> everything right.
>
Fair enough. I'll rewrite the examples to use pk lookups. I doubt the query
plan for those will change much in the future.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> So the patch attached fixes the problem by changing BufferAlloc() in
> such a way that initialization forks are permanently written to disk,
> which is what you are suggesting. As a simple fix for back-branches
> that's enough, though on HE
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Stepping back a bit, I am aware of the following approaches to hash
> join parallelism:
>
> 1. Run the inner plan and build a private hash table in each
> participant [...].
>
> 2. Run a partition-wise hash join[1]. [...]
>
> 3. Repartition
> HashMetaPage _hash_getcachedmetap(Relation rel, Buffer *metabuf, bool
> force_refresh);
>
> If the cache is initialized and force_refresh is not true, then this
> just returns the cached data, and the metabuf argument isn't used.
> Otherwise, if *metabuf == InvalidBuffer, we set *metabuf to point
Hello,
I'm wondering what pg would do on "EXISTS(SELECT 1 FROM customer)" if
there are many employees. [...]
I believe that the scan stops on the first row it finds, because the
EXITS() clause is met.
Hmmm... That is not so clear from "EXPLAIN" output:
Result (cost=0.03..0.04 rows=1 widt
Please pardon the redondance: this is a slightly edited repost
from another thread where motivation for this patch was discussed, so
that it appear in the relevant thread.
Tom> [...] there was immediately objection as to whether his idea of TPC-B
Tom> compliance was actually right.
37 matches
Mail list logo
