Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

On 3/8/17 9:34 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote: Also, if by any chance you think (or use any software that thinks) that OIDs for system objects are a stable identifier, this will be the first case where that ceases to be true. If the system is shut down or crashes or the session is killed, you'll be

Re: [HACKERS] ANALYZE command progress checker

Thank you for reviewing the patch. The attached patch incorporated Michael and Amit comments also. On 2017/03/07 15:45, Haribabu Kommi wrote: On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: @@ -496,7 +499,6 @@

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On 03/10/2017 11:23 AM, Beena Emerson wrote: Thank you for your reviews Kuntal, Jim, Ashutosh Attached in an updated 02 patch which: 1. Call RetrieveXLogSegSize(conn) in pg_receivewal.c 2. Remove the warning in Windows 3. Change PATH_MAX in pg_waldump with MAXPGPATH Regarding the usage

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

On 3/7/17 10:30 AM, Keith Fiske wrote: I'm all for this feature and had suggested it back in the original FWIW, I was working with a system just today that has an overflow partition. thread to add partitioning to 10. I agree that adding a new partition should not move any data out of the

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> >> But as far as code is concerned, I think the two-list approach will >> turn out to be less simple if we derive corresponding two different >> arrays in AppendState node. Handling two different arrays

Re: [HACKERS] Need a builtin way to run all tests faster manner

On 3/8/17 16:49, Andres Freund wrote: >> make check-world -j2 seems to run fine for me. > > Hm, I at least used to get a lot of spurious failures with this. I > e.g. don't think the free port selection is race free. I was also not sure about that, but as Michael has pointed out, that doesn't

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Transaction traceability - txid_status(bigint)

On 10 March 2017 at 02:55, Robert Haas wrote: > Well, that's why I tried to advocate that their should be two separate > XID limits in shared memory: leave what's there now the way it is, and > then add a new limit for "don't try to look up XIDs before this point: >

Re: [HACKERS] Report the number of skipped frozen pages by manual VACUUM

On 3/6/17 8:34 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: I don't think it can say "1 frozen pages" because the number of skipped pages according to visibility map is always more than 32 (SKIP_PAGES_THRESHOLD). That's just an artifact of how the VM currently works. I'm not a fan of cross dependencies like

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

Amit Kapila writes: > Just to let you know that I think I have figured out the reason of > failure. If we run the regressions with attached patch, it will make > the regression tests fail consistently in same way. The patch just > makes all transaction status updates to

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

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Buildfarm thinks eight wasn't enough. >>>

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David Steele > PostgreSQL currently requires the file mode mask (umask) to be 0077. > However, this precludes the possibility of a user in the postgres group > performing a backup (or whatever).

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

> > But as far as code is concerned, I think the two-list approach will > turn out to be less simple if we derive corresponding two different > arrays in AppendState node. Handling two different arrays during > execution does not look clean. Whereas, the bitmapset that I have used > in Append has

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

Hello, On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > Hi, > > I took a look at this patch. Overall, the patch looks good to me. > However, there are some review comments that I would like to share, > > 1. I think the macro 'PATH_MAX' used in pg_waldump.c file

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Configurable file mode mask

On 2/28/17 20:58, David Steele wrote: > This patch introduces a new initdb param, -u/-file-mode-mask, and a new > GUC, file_mode_mask, to allow the default mode of files and directories > in the $PGDATA directory to be modified. The postmaster.pid file appears not to observe the configured mask.

Re: [HACKERS] exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Tracking wait event for latches)

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:11 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-03-09 16:37:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas writes: >> > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Peter Eisentraut >> > wrote: >> >> In practice, I think

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting

On 2/28/17 13:02, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > + > +-- Extract value by key > +SELECT ('{"a": 1}'::jsonb)['a']; > + > +-- Extract nested value by key path > +SELECT ('{"a": {"b": {"c": 1}}}'::jsonb)['a']['b']['c']; > + > +-- Extract element by index > +SELECT ('[1, "2", null]'::jsonb)['1']; > + > +--

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

Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Buildfarm thinks eight wasn't enough. >> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=clam=2017-03-10%2002%3A00%3A01 > At first I was confused how you knew that this

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On 10 March 2017 at 10:13, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Ashutosh Bapat >> wrote: +if (rel->partial_pathlist

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Enabling atomics on ARM64

Andres Freund writes: > FWIW, Unless somebody seriously protests, I'm going to commit this soon-ish. Sure, if you want to take responsibility for it, push away. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)

Re: [HACKERS] allow referring to functions without arguments when unique

On 3/7/17 00:32, Michael Paquier wrote: >> OK. After a lookup, I am just seeing opfamily, opclass missing, so >> this patch is doing it as you describe. I'm not sure what you mean here. >> @@ -7198,6 +7198,33 @@ function_with_argtypes: >> n->objargs = extractArgTypes($2); >>

[HACKERS] Logical replication origin tracking fix

Hi, while discussing with Craig issues around restarting logical replication stream related to the patch he posted [1], I realized that we track wrong origin LSN in the logical replication apply. We currently track commit_lsn which is *start* of commit record, what we need to track is end_lsn

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy

On 09/03/17 18:48, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 3/6/17 05:27, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> And lastly I changed the automagic around exporting, not exporting and >> using the snapshot produced by CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT into explicit >> parameter for the CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT command (and added simple

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy

On 09/03/17 18:46, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 3/6/17 05:27, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> updated and rebased version of the patch attached. > > Some comments on this patch: > > Can we have a better explanation of different snapshot options in > CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT. We use all these variants in

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading postmaster's log messages about bind/listen errors

Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Joe Conway wrote: >> On 03/09/2017 12:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> For good measure I also added a DEBUG1 log message reporting successful >>> binding to a port. I'm not sure if there's an argument

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >>> >>> +if (rel->partial_pathlist != NIL && >>> +(Path *) linitial(rel->partial_pathlist) == subpath) >>> +

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign Join pushdowns not working properly for outer joins

>> >> The new name merge_fdw_options() is shorter than the one I chose, but >> we are not exactly merging options for an upper relation since there >> isn't the other fpinfo to merge from. But I think we can live with >> merge_fdw_options(). > > Perhaps "combine" is a better word? I didn't really

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Use $ parameters as replacement characters for pg_stat_statements

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> In my opinion, we expose query id (and dbid, and userid) as the >> canonical identifier for each pg_stat_statements entry, and have done >> so for some time. That's the stable API -- not query text. I'm aware >> of cases

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Use $ parameters as replacement characters for pg_stat_statements

On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:52:44AM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Meh ... we've generally regretted it when we "solved" a backwards > > compatibility problem by introducing a GUC that changes query semantics. > > I'm

Re: [HACKERS] SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL

On 09/03/17 19:50, Peter van Hardenberg wrote: > Anecdotally, we just stored dates as strings and used a convention (key > ends in "_at", I believe) to interpret them. The lack of support for > dates in JSON is well-known, universally decried... and not a problem > the PostgreSQL community can

Re: [HACKERS] foreign partition DDL regression tests

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: At least we need to update the documentation. >>> >>> Got a proposal? >> >> How about something like attached? > > Committed

Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Neha Khatri wrote: > Sorry about the naive question, but if someone has set the GUC bytea_output > = 'escape', then the intention seem to be to obtain the output in 'escape' > format for bytea. > With this, if an installcheck is done, that

Re: [HACKERS] amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> Hm - I think it's fair to export RecentGlobalXmin, given that we >> obviously use it across modules in core code. I see very little reason >> not to export it. > > Well, the assertion is completely useless as anything but

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading postmaster's log messages about bind/listen errors

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > On 03/09/2017 12:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Over in >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/201703072317.01345.john.iliffe%40iliffe.ca >> we spent quite a lot of effort to diagnose what turned out to be a simple >>

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > Do we really need to set LSN on this page (or mark it dirty), if so > why? Are you worried about restoration of FPI or something else? I haven't thought through all of the possible consequences and am a bit to tired

Re: [HACKERS] amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> verify_nbtree.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol >> RecentGlobalXmin >> [C:\buildfarm\buildenv\HEAD\pgsql.build\amcheck.vcxproj] >> >> Rather than marking RecentGlobalXmin as PGDLLIMPORT, I'd rather just >>

Re: [HACKERS] amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

Hi, On 2017-03-09 19:04:46 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > I don't really expect buildfarm fallout, but .. > > Unfortunately, there is some on Windows: Thanks for monitoring. > verify_nbtree.obj : error LNK2001:

Re: [HACKERS] amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > And pushed with these. Thanks. > I don't really expect buildfarm fallout, but .. Unfortunately, there is some on Windows: verify_nbtree.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol RecentGlobalXmin

[HACKERS] Bug in get_partition_for_tuple

Just observed a crash due to thinko in the logic that handles NULL partition key. Absence of null-accepting partition in this case should have caused an error, instead the current code proceeds with comparison resulting in crash. create table p (a int, b char) partition by list (b); create table

Re: [HACKERS] on_dsm_detach() callback and parallel tuplesort BufFile resource management

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> Suppressing ENOENT because it's not clear which backend actually owns >> a file is a bit different from using it to detect that

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

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> I think eight is enough. Committed with some cosmetic changes. > > Buildfarm thinks eight wasn't enough. > >

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> Right, if we use XLogReadBufferForRedoExtended() instead of >> XLogReadBufferExtended()/LockBufferForCleanup during relay routine, >> then

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

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> I think eight is enough. Committed with some cosmetic changes. > > Buildfarm thinks eight wasn't enough. > >

Re: [HACKERS] on_dsm_detach() callback and parallel tuplesort BufFile resource management

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > Suppressing ENOENT because it's not clear which backend actually owns > a file is a bit different from using it to detect that there are no > more segments... +1, emphatically. > Obviously I screwed some things

Re: [HACKERS] on_dsm_detach() callback and parallel tuplesort BufFile resource management

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Quite a lot of thought seems to have gone into making the > fd.c/resowner mechanism leak-proof in the face of errors. So, quite > apart from what that approaches misses out on, I really don't want to > change resource

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix hard-coded relkind constants in pg_dump.c.

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Existing style is mostly to inject relkind values into constructed >>> query strings using %c.

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

Robert Haas writes: > I think eight is enough. Committed with some cosmetic changes. Buildfarm thinks eight wasn't enough. https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=clam=2017-03-10%2002%3A00%3A01 regards, tom lane -- Sent via

[HACKERS] Changing references of password encryption to hashing

Hi all, As discussed here: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/98cafcd0-5557-0bdf-4837-0f2b7782d...@joeconway.com We are using in documentation and code comments "encryption" to define what actually is hashing, which is confusing. Attached is a patch for HEAD to change the documentation to

Re: [HACKERS] Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> (And no, I don't especially >> approve of RELKIND_SEQUENCE being 'S' either, but it's far too late to >> change that.) > FWIW the reason SEQUENCE uses S instead of 's' is that the latter was > taken for "special" relations,

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: psql show index with type info

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Amos Bird (amosb...@gmail.com) wrote: >> Well, the prefix is used to differentiate other \d commands, like >> this, > > Ah, ok, fair enough. > > Should we consider differentiating different table types also? I > suppose

Re: [HACKERS] GSOC Introduction / Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > George, > > * George Papadrosou (gpapadro...@gmail.com) wrote: >> my name is George Papadrosou, this is my first semester as graduate student >> at Georgia Tech and would like to submit a proposal to Google Summer of >>

Re: [HACKERS] Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE

Tom Lane wrote: > (And no, I don't especially > approve of RELKIND_SEQUENCE being 'S' either, but it's far too late to > change that.) FWIW the reason SEQUENCE uses S instead of 's' is that the latter was taken for "special" relations, which we removed a few releases ago (commit 3a694bb0a1). --

Re: [HACKERS] contrib modules and relkind check

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Thanks. Shouldn't this fix be back-patched? pg_visibility should fail > properly for indexes and other relkinds even in 9.6. pgstattuple can > also trigger failures. It would be confusing for users to face "could

Re: [HACKERS] on_dsm_detach() callback and parallel tuplesort BufFile resource management

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> by having state for each segment, it ends up actually *relying on* >> ENOENT-on-unlink() as a condition that terminates execution: > >

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix hard-coded relkind constants in pg_dump.c.

Michael Paquier writes: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Existing style is mostly to inject relkind values into constructed >> query strings using %c. I did not bother to touch places that did it >> like that, but really a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Teach Catalog.pm how many attributes there should be per DATA() line

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Langote writes: >> On 2017/03/10 9:14, Jeff Janes wrote: >>> I think we can just save $. and use that, as in the attached. > >> The patch works for me. > > Me too. Pushed; we'll soon see if

Re: [HACKERS] Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE

I wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> For reasons which must've seemed good to whoever instituted the >> policy, pg_dump refers to relkinds using the bare letters rather than >> the constants. > Even in pg_dump, it appears to me that the large majority of relkind > references

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Enabling atomics on ARM64

On 2017-03-10 10:29:39 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > >> I'd like to offer a forward port from a change I'm contributing > >> the Greenplum

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Teach Catalog.pm how many attributes there should be per DATA() line

Amit Langote writes: > On 2017/03/10 9:14, Jeff Janes wrote: >> I think we can just save $. and use that, as in the attached. > The patch works for me. Me too. Pushed; we'll soon see if that makes the oldest buildfarm critters happy.

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw IMPORT SCHEMA and partitioned tables

On 2017/03/10 10:26, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> While reviewing Amit Langote's patch to handle partitioned tables >> properly in various contrib modules (mostly by throwing an error since >> things like pageinspect aren't

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Enabling atomics on ARM64

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >> I'd like to offer a forward port from a change I'm contributing >> the Greenplum code base over here: >>

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw IMPORT SCHEMA and partitioned tables

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > While reviewing Amit Langote's patch to handle partitioned tables > properly in various contrib modules (mostly by throwing an error since > things like pageinspect aren't going to work on the empty 'parent' > table), I

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 2017/03/10 3:26, Robert Haas wrote: > I think you might have the titles for 0002 and 0003 backwards. Oops, you're right. > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 2:51 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >> 0002: some cosmetic fixes to create_table.sgml > > I think this sentence may be unclear to some readers: > > +

Re: [HACKERS] GSOC Introduction / Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions

George, * George Papadrosou (gpapadro...@gmail.com) wrote: > my name is George Papadrosou, this is my first semester as graduate student > at Georgia Tech and would like to submit a proposal to Google Summer of Code, > for the project "Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Teach Catalog.pm how many attributes there should be per DATA() line

On 2017/03/10 9:14, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Robert Haas > wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker > > wrote: > > David

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Throw an error if a DATA() line contains wrong # of attributes.

Michael Paquier writes: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Throw an error if a DATA() line contains wrong # of attributes. > dromedary is unhappy because of this commit, and it is using perl 5.10.0: My RHEL6 workstation

Re: [HACKERS] Should buffer of initialization fork have a BM_PERMANENT flag

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Artur Zakirov wrote: > I think this is good fixes. I've checked them. And in my opinion they are > correct. > > The code also is good. Having something with conflicts is not nice, so attached is a rebased version. > I have run

Re: [HACKERS] contrib modules and relkind check

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: >> Thanks. Shouldn't this fix be back-patched? pg_visibility should fail >> properly for indexes and other relkinds even in 9.6. pgstattuple can >> also trigger

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Throw an error if a DATA() line contains wrong # of attributes.

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > Throw an error if a DATA() line contains wrong # of attributes. > > David Christensen, reviewed by Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker > > Discussion: > http://postgr.es/m/20170215154018.fs5vwtqhp5d2s...@veeddeux.attlocal.net > >

[HACKERS] GSOC Introduction / Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions

Hello psql hackers, my name is George Papadrosou, this is my first semester as graduate student at Georgia Tech and would like to submit a proposal to Google Summer of Code, for the project "Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions”. A short bio, I have

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix hard-coded relkind constants in pg_dump.c.

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Fix hard-coded relkind constants in pg_dump.c. > > Although it's reasonable to expect that most of these constants will > never change, that does not make it good programming style to hard-code > the value rather than using

Re: [HACKERS] amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

On 2017-03-09 16:29:24 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > I am generally in favor of more inclusive Reviewed-By lists. I suggest > that we expand it to: > > "Reviewed-By: Andres Freund, Thomas Vondra, Thomas Munro, Anastasia > Lubennikova, Robert Haas, Amit Langote" And pushed with these. I don't

Re: [HACKERS] contrib modules and relkind check

Michael, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > Thanks. Shouldn't this fix be back-patched? pg_visibility should fail > properly for indexes and other relkinds even in 9.6. pgstattuple can > also trigger failures. It would be confusing for users to face "could > not open file"

Re: [HACKERS] on_dsm_detach() callback and parallel tuplesort BufFile resource management

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > by having state for each segment, it ends up actually *relying on* > ENOENT-on-unlink() as a condition that terminates execution: Yeah, this seems to fall out of the requirement to manage a growable number of partition files

Re: [HACKERS] amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > But I also think it's more important to get some initial verification > functionality in, than resolving this conflict. I do, also quite > strongly, think we'll be better served with having something like what > you're

Re: [HACKERS] contrib modules and relkind check

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On 2017/03/10 6:48, Stephen Frost wrote: >> Amit, Michael, >> >> * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: >>> On 2017/03/09 11:51, Michael Paquier wrote: OK, I am marking that

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioning vs ON CONFLICT

On 2017/03/10 9:10, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/03/09 23:25, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >>> I updated the patch. Now it's reduced to simply removing the check in >>> transformInsertStmt() that prevented using *any* ON CONFLICT on >>> partitioned

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Teach Catalog.pm how many attributes there should be per DATA() line

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker > wrote: > > David Christensen writes: > >>> Hi David, > >>> > >>> Here's a review of your patch. > >> > >> Hi Ilmari,

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioning vs ON CONFLICT

On 2017/03/09 23:25, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >> I updated the patch. Now it's reduced to simply removing the check in >> transformInsertStmt() that prevented using *any* ON CONFLICT on >> partitioned tables at all. > > This patch no longer

Re: [HACKERS] contrib modules and relkind check

Hi Stephen, On 2017/03/10 6:48, Stephen Frost wrote: > Amit, Michael, > > * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: >> On 2017/03/09 11:51, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> OK, I am marking that as ready for committer. >> >> Thanks. > > Thanks for this, I've pushed this now. I do have a

Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Neha Khatri wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> On 2/14/17 16:50, Jeff Janes wrote: >> > make installcheck currently fails against a server running >> > with

Re: [HACKERS] amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

On 2017-03-06 20:40:59 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > I'm ok with not immediately doing so, but I think Peter's design isn't > > in line with achieving something like this. > > I would be okay with doing this if we had

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning optimization for large amount of partitions

Hi Aleksander, noticed this in your patch: > * Add a corespinding entry to pgStatTabHash. "corresponding" Also a question: Some one-line comments are /* Comment. */ while others are /* * Comment. */ Why the difference? Hope this helps, Tels PS: Sorry if this appears twice, I

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning optimization for large amount of partitions

Hi Aleksander, noticed this in your patch: > * Add a corespinding entry to pgStatTabHash. "corresponding" Also a question: Some one-line comments are /* Comment. */ while others are /* * Comment. */ Why the difference? Hope this helps, Tels -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2/14/17 16:50, Jeff Janes wrote: > > make installcheck currently fails against a server running > > with bytea_output = escape. > > > > Making it succeed is fairly easy, and I think it is worth

[HACKERS] SQL Standard Feature T211

[separate thread from transition table patch, since a different audience might be interested] Four things are required to claim support for Feature T211, "Basic trigger capability": - support for the CREATE TRIGGER statement - the ability to declare and reference transition tables for AFTER

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Teach Catalog.pm how many attributes there should be per DATA() line

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: > David Christensen writes: >>> Hi David, >>> >>> Here's a review of your patch. >> >> Hi Ilmari, thanks for your time and review. I’m fine with the revised >> version. > > Okay, I've marked

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH]: fix bug in SP-GiST box_ops

Hello, On Thu, March 9, 2017 9:04 am, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Emre Hasegeli wrote: > >> > I think this patch is already in a good shape. >> >> I am sorry for introducing this bug. This fix looks good to me as well. > > > I checked this

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

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Thanks for the review. > > Moved to CF 2017-03, the 8th commit fest of this patch. I think eight is enough. Committed with some cosmetic changes. I think the turning point for this somewhat-troubled patch

Re: [HACKERS] delta relations in AFTER triggers

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > New patch attached. And bit-rotted less than 24 hours later by fcec6caa. New patch attached just to fix bit-rot. That conflicting patch might be a candidate to merge into the new Ephemeral Named Relation provided by my

Re: [HACKERS][REVIEW] macaddr 64 bit (EUI-64) datatype support

Hari Babu, * Haribabu Kommi (kommi.harib...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Vitaly Burovoy > wrote: > > The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer > > Thanks for the review. I've started taking a look at this with an eye towards

Re: [HACKERS] Performance issue after upgrading from 9.4 to 9.6

2017-03-09 18:28 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas : > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Naytro Naytro > wrote: > > We are having some performance issues after we upgraded to newest > > version of PostgreSQL, before it everything was fast and smooth. > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Performance issue after upgrading from 9.4 to 9.6

2017-03-09 20:19 GMT+01:00 Andres Freund : > Hi, > > On 2017-03-09 13:47:35 +0100, Naytro Naytro wrote: > > We are having some performance issues after we upgraded to newest > > version of PostgreSQL, before it everything was fast and smooth. > > > > Upgrade was done by

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add pg_disable_checksums() and supporting infrastructure

> On Mar 9, 2017, at 1:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 12:02 PM, David Christensen > wrote: >> Hi Robert, this is part of a larger patch which *does* enable the checksums >> online; I’ve been extracting the necessary pieces out

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Bitmap scans a bit broken

On 10 March 2017 at 06:17, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Dilip Kumar > wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Dilip Kumar > wrote: > >> I slightly modified your query to reproduce this issue. > >>

Re: [HACKERS] rename pg_log directory?

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:01:04AM +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > On 02/27/2017 03:05 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >How about changing the default for log_directory from 'pg_log' to, say, > >'log'? > > I have attached a patch which does this. I do not care much about which name > is picked as

Re: [HACKERS] compiler warning in set_tablefunc_size_estimates

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> I tried a non-cassert compile on a machine that has a pickier compiler >> than my laptop, and got: > >> costsize.c: In function ‘set_tablefunc_size_estimates’: >>

Re: [HACKERS] Enabling replication connections by default in pg_hba.conf

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 3/8/17 02:34, Michael Paquier wrote: >> This patch looks good to me. > > committed Thanks. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

Re: [HACKERS] Automatic cleanup of oldest WAL segments with pg_receivexlog

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 3/7/17 11:16, Robert Haas wrote: >> Well, if the problem you're trying to solve is "retain WAL for as long >> as possible without running out of disk space and having everything go >> kablooey", then

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE/ALTER ROLE PASSWORD ('value' USING 'method')

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:00 AM, Joe Conway wrote: > On 03/09/2017 06:34 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> Yes, I agree with that for MD5, and after looking around I can see >>> (like here

Re: [HACKERS] contrib modules and relkind check

Amit, Michael, * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: > On 2017/03/09 11:51, Michael Paquier wrote: > > OK, I am marking that as ready for committer. > > Thanks. Thanks for this, I've pushed this now. I do have a few notes about changes that I made from your patch; - Generally

  1   2   3   >