On 2017-04-05 04:25:41 +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: Craig Ringer [mailto:craig.rin...@2ndquadrant.com]
> > On 5 April 2017 at 10:37, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
> > wrote:
> >
> > OTOH, I tried again to leave the DISABLE_MAX_PRIVILEGE as is and add Lock
> > Pages in Memory, using the attache
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:21:39PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I think the fix belongs into the web site CSS, so there is nothing to
> commit into PostgreSQL here. I will close the commit fest entry, but I
> have added a section to the open items list so we keep track of it.
> (https://wiki.p
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:30:03PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> I'm just reviewing Tomas' code for the dependencies part of the stats
> when I saw something that looked a bit unusual.
>
> I tested with:
>
> CREATE TABLE ab1 (a INTEGER, b INTEGER);
> ALTER TABLE ab1 ALTER a SET STATISTICS 0;
> INS
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:26:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Andrew Dunstan (andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> >> On 03/22/2017 11:39 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> > * Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote:
> >> >> Sync
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:49:46AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-03-09 13:34:22 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Andres Freund writes:
> > >> Wonder if we there's an argument to be made for implementing this
> > >> roughly similarly to s
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Regarding this feature, there are some loose ends. We should work on
> and complete them until the release.
>
> (1)
> Which synchronous replication method, priority or quorum, should be
> chosen when neither FIRST nor ANY is specified
> From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
>> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tatsuo Ishii
>> I have done tests using pgproto. One thing I noticed a strange behavior.
>> Below is an output of pgproto. The test first set the timeout to 3 seconds,
>> and parse/bind for "SELEC
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> Yes, I agree. For an inner join, the partition key types need to "shrink"
>> and for outer join they need to be "widened". I don't know if there is a way
>> to know "wider" or "shorter
Thanks Tomas and David for hacking on this patch.
On 04.04.2017 20:19, Tomas Vondra wrote:
I'm not sure we still need the min_group_size, when evaluating
dependencies. It was meant to deal with 'noisy' data, but I think it
after switching to the 'degree' it might actually be a bad idea.
Consi
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tatsuo Ishii
> I have done tests using pgproto. One thing I noticed a strange behavior.
> Below is an output of pgproto. The test first set the timeout to 3 seconds,
> and parse/bind for "SELECT pg_s
>> What do you think? I've not really tested this with the extended protocol,
>> so I'd appreciate if you could rerun your test from the older thread.
>
> The patch looks good and cleaner. It looks like the code works as expected.
> As before, I ran one INSERT statement with PgJDBC, with gdb's
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/04/05 6:22, Keith Fiske wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Rahila Syed wrote:
> >> Please find attached an updated patch.
> >> Following has been accomplished in this update:
> >>
> >> 1. A new partition can be added after def
> Interested to hear comments on this.
I don't have chance to test it right now, but I am sure it would be an
improvement over what we have right now. There is no single correct
equation with so many unknowns we have.
> *indexTotalCost += (numTuples * *indexSelectivity) *
(cpu_index_tuple_cos
On 2017/04/05 6:22, Keith Fiske wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Rahila Syed wrote:
>> Please find attached an updated patch.
>> Following has been accomplished in this update:
>>
>> 1. A new partition can be added after default partition if there are no
>> conflicting rows in default parti
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 4/5/17 00:58, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Another issue is whether you won't get compiler complaints about
>> redefinition of the "true" and "false" macros. But those would
>> likely only be warnings, not flat-out errors.
> The complaint about bool is also just a warning.
R
On 4/5/17 00:58, Tom Lane wrote:
> Another issue is whether you won't get compiler complaints about
> redefinition of the "true" and "false" macros. But those would
> likely only be warnings, not flat-out errors.
The complaint about bool is also just a warning.
--
Peter Eisentraut
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of 'Andres Freund'
> Attached. I did not like that the previous patch had the timeout handling
> duplicated in the individual functions, I instead centralized it into
> start_xact_command(). Given tha
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
>> Any objections?
> I'm guessing Tom's going to have a strong feeling about whether 0001a
> is the right way to address the stdbool issue,
I will? [ looks ... ] Yup, you're right.
I doubt that works at all, TBH. What I
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> In builds where USE_ASSERT_CHECKING is not enabled, costsize.c can
>> generate warnings. Here is for example with MSVC:
>> src/backend/optimizer/path/costsize.c(4520): warning C4101: 'rte' :
>> unreferenced local vari
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2017-04-05 10:05:19 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> What's your point of the question? What kind of problem do you expect
>> if the timeout starts only once at the first parse meesage out of
>> bunch of parse messages?
> It's perfectly valid to send a lot of Parse message
On 3 April 2017 at 03:05, Emre Hasegeli wrote:
> Unfortunately, I am on vacation for two weeks without my computer. I can
> post another version after 18th. I know we are under time pressure for
> release. I wouldn't mind if you or Alvaro would change it anyway you like.
I've made some changes
From: Craig Ringer [mailto:craig.rin...@2ndquadrant.com]
> On 5 April 2017 at 10:37, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
> wrote:
>
> OTOH, I tried again to leave the DISABLE_MAX_PRIVILEGE as is and add Lock
> Pages in Memory, using the attached pg_ctl.c. Please see
> EnableLockPagesPrivilege() and its call sit
fore
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I will continue tomorrow, but I wanted to report on what I've done so far.
> Attached is a new patch version, quite heavily modified. Notable changes so
> far:
Great, thanks!
> * Use Unicode codepoints, rather than UTF-8 bytes pac
On 4/4/17 12:55, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> As I am not seeing any response from Tomas for last 2-3 days and since
> the commit-fest is coming towards end, I have planned to work on the
> review comments that I had given few days back and submit the updated
> patch. PFA new version of patch that take
On 4/4/17 22:47, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Committed first part to allow internal representation change (only).
>>
>> No commitment yet to increasing wal-segsize in the way this patch has it.
>>
>
> What part of patch you don't like and do you have any suggestions to
> improve the same?
I think there
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Pavan Deolasee
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
> >> but
> >> try to access the TOAST table would be fatal; that probably would have
> >> deadlock hazards among other problem
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Pavan Deolasee
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> but
>> try to access the TOAST table would be fatal; that probably would have
>> deadlock hazards among other problems.
>
> Hmm. I think you're right. We could make a copy of the heap
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> Yes, I agree. For an inner join, the partition key types need to "shrink"
> and for outer join they need to be "widened". I don't know if there is a way
> to know "wider" or "shorter" of two given types. We might have to implement
> a method
On 5 April 2017 at 10:37, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
wrote:
> Good point! And I said earlier in this thread, I think managing privileges
> (adding/revoking privileges from the user account) is the DBA's or sysadmin's
> duty, and PG's removing all privileges feels overkill.
I think it's a sensible al
At Tue, 4 Apr 2017 20:19:39 +0200, Tomas Vondra
wrote in <56f40b20-c464-fad2-ff39-06b668fac...@2ndquadrant.com>
> On 04/04/2017 09:55 AM, David Rowley wrote:
> > On 1 April 2017 at 04:25, David Rowley
> > wrote:
> >> I've attached an updated patch.
> >
> > I've made another pass at this and ende
On 4/3/17, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 3/30/17 22:57, Vitaly Burovoy wrote:
>> Why do you still want to leave "ADD IF NOT EXISTS" instead of using
>> "SET IF NOT EXISTS"?
>> If someone wants to follow the standard he can simply not to use "IF
>> NOT EXISTS" at all. Without it error should be rais
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:36 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 27 March 2017 at 15:36, Beena Emerson wrote:
>
>> 02-increase-max-wal-segsize.patch - Increases the wal-segsize and changes
>> the internal representation of max_wal_size and min_wal_size to mb.
>
> Committed first part to allow internal rep
On 5 April 2017 at 08:23, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 5 April 2017 at 08:00, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
>> Taking a look at this now.
>
> Rebased to current master with conflicts and whitespace errors fixed.
> Review pending.
This patch fails to update the documentation at all.
https://www.postgresql.o
From: Craig Ringer [mailto:craig.rin...@2ndquadrant.com]
> TBH, anyone who cares about security and runs Win7 or Win2k8 or newer should
> be using virtual service accounts and managed service accounts.
>
> https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd548356
>
>
> Those are more like Unix servic
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-04-04 08:01:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > > I don't think the parallel seqscan is comparable in complexity with the
> > > parallel append case. Each worker there does th
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 4/3/17 11:32, Andres Freund wrote:
>> That doesn't strike as particularly future proof. We intentionally
>> leave objects behind pg_regress runs, but that only works if we actually
>> run them...
>
> I generally agree with the sentimen
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> The patch presented here does lower the coverage we have now.
>
> I assume (perhaps mistakenly) that this statement was based on a
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> but
> try to access the TOAST table would be fatal; that probably would have
> deadlock hazards among other problems.
Hmm. I think you're right. We could make a copy of the heap tuple, drop the
lock and then access TOAST to handle that. Wou
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tatsuo Ishii
> Hmm. IMO, that could happen even with the current statement timeout
> implementation as well.
>
> Or we could start/stop the timeout in exec_execute_message() only. This
> could avoid
> On 2017-04-04 16:56:26 -0700, 'Andres Freund' wrote:
>> On 2017-04-04 23:52:28 +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
>> > From: Andres Freund [mailto:and...@anarazel.de]
>> > > Looks to me like npgsql doesn't do that either. None of libpq, pgjdbs
>> > > and
>> > > npgsql doing it seems like some ev
On 2017-04-04 16:56:26 -0700, 'Andres Freund' wrote:
> On 2017-04-04 23:52:28 +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > From: Andres Freund [mailto:and...@anarazel.de]
> > > Looks to me like npgsql doesn't do that either. None of libpq, pgjdbs and
> > > npgsql doing it seems like some evidence that it
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 04/04/2017 10:02 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
>> On 04/04/2017 09:55 AM, Mike Palmiotto wrote:
>>> After some discussion off-list, I've rebased and udpated the patches.
>>> Please see attached for further review.
>>
>> Thanks -- will have another loo
>> What's your point of the question? What kind of problem do you expect
>> if the timeout starts only once at the first parse meesage out of
>> bunch of parse messages?
>
> It's perfectly valid to send a lot of Parse messages without
> interspersed Sync or Bind/Execute message. There'll be one t
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Hmm, you're right. It could be counted with a separate variable
>> initialized to 0 and incremented every time we decide to add a row to the
>> final set of sampled rows, although differ
On 2017-04-05 10:05:19 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > Hm. I started to edit it, but I'm halfway coming back to my previous
> > view that this isn't necessarily ready.
> >
> > If a client were to to prepare a large number of prepared statements
> > (i.e. a lot of parse messages), this'll only start
Hi,
PostgresMain() has the following blurb for fastpath functions:
/*
* Note: we may at this point be inside an
aborted
* transaction. We can't throw error for that
until we've
> Hm. I started to edit it, but I'm halfway coming back to my previous
> view that this isn't necessarily ready.
>
> If a client were to to prepare a large number of prepared statements
> (i.e. a lot of parse messages), this'll only start the timeout once, at
> the first statement sent. It's not
>> Please find attached a v8 which hopefully fixes these two issues.
> Looks good to me, marking as ready for committer.
I have looked into this a little bit.
It seems the new feature \gset doesn't work with tables having none
ascii column names:
$ src/bin/pgbench/pgbench -t 1 -f /tmp/f test
sta
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Committed, with those additions.
Thanks for the commit. The final result is nice.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/p
On 5 April 2017 at 08:00, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Taking a look at this now.
Rebased to current master with conflicts and whitespace errors fixed.
Review pending.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From 71b616
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> OK, done. I have just noticed that Simon has marked himself as a
> committer of this patch 24 hours ago.
For the archive's sake, this has been committed as 728bd991. Thanks Simon!
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsq
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Worked on the docs some more and then pushed it.
>
> Nice job cutting the number of *.[ch] lines by 30 while adding support for
> the other three core PLs. :-)
Great. Thanks. I wonder if there is some way we can automatically
include cod
On 6 March 2017 at 05:09, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 2/28/17 9:42 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll post a plpython patch that doesn't add the output format control.
>>
>>
>> I've attached the results of that. Unfortunately the speed improvement
>> is only 27% at this point (with 999 tuples). P
On 2017-04-04 23:52:28 +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: Andres Freund [mailto:and...@anarazel.de]
> > Looks to me like npgsql doesn't do that either. None of libpq, pgjdbs and
> > npgsql doing it seems like some evidence that it's ok.
>
> And psqlODBC now uses always libpq.
>
> Now time
From: Andres Freund [mailto:and...@anarazel.de]
> Looks to me like npgsql doesn't do that either. None of libpq, pgjdbs and
> npgsql doing it seems like some evidence that it's ok.
And psqlODBC now uses always libpq.
Now time for final decision?
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
--
Sent via pgsql
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Thomas Munro writes:
Or perhaps the code to inject trigger data transition tables into SPI
(a near identical code block th
On 2017-04-04 16:38:53 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-04-04 16:10:32 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > >> If what Tatsuo-san said to Tom is correct (i.e. each Parse/Bind/Execute
> > >> starts and stops the timer), then it's a concern and the patch should
> > >> not be ready for committer. Ho
On 2017-04-05 08:34:43 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> Andres,
>
> >> I think the code needs a few clarifying comments around this, but
> >> otherwise seems good. Not restarting the timeout in those cases
> >> obviously isn't entirely "perfect"/"correct", but a tradeoff - the
> >> comments should no
On 2017-04-04 16:10:32 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >> If what Tatsuo-san said to Tom is correct (i.e. each Parse/Bind/Execute
> >> starts and stops the timer), then it's a concern and the patch should not
> >> be ready for committer. However, the current patch is not like that -- it
> >> seems
Andres,
>> I think the code needs a few clarifying comments around this, but
>> otherwise seems good. Not restarting the timeout in those cases
>> obviously isn't entirely "perfect"/"correct", but a tradeoff - the
>> comments should note that.
>>
>> Tatsuo-san, do you want to change those, and p
On 04/04/2017 10:02 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 04/04/2017 09:55 AM, Mike Palmiotto wrote:
>> After some discussion off-list, I've rebased and udpated the patches.
>> Please see attached for further review.
>
> Thanks -- will have another look and test on a machine with selinux
> setup. Robert, did
On 27 March 2017 at 15:36, Beena Emerson wrote:
> 02-increase-max-wal-segsize.patch - Increases the wal-segsize and changes
> the internal representation of max_wal_size and min_wal_size to mb.
Committed first part to allow internal representation change (only).
No commitment yet to increasing
On 04/04/2017 01:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 03/31/2017 10:10 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
I kinda hope Heikki is going to step up to the plate here, because I
think he understand
On 2017-04-04 23:23:30 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 04/04/2017 10:42 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Andres nagged to me about valgrind runs taking much longer since
> > 9fab40ad introduced the SlabContext into reorderbuffer.c. And by
> > "longer" I mean hours instead of minutes.
> >
>
On 04/04/2017 10:42 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hi,
Andres nagged to me about valgrind runs taking much longer since
9fab40ad introduced the SlabContext into reorderbuffer.c. And by
"longer" I mean hours instead of minutes.
After a bit of investigation I stumbled on this line in slab.c:
VALGRIND
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Rahila Syed wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Please find attached an updated patch.
> Following has been accomplished in this update:
>
> 1. A new partition can be added after default partition if there are no
> conflicting rows in default partition.
> 2. Solved the crash repor
On 04/03/2017 05:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-03-21 14:31:08 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> On 03/21/2017 01:37 PM, David Steele wrote:
>>> On 3/16/17 11:54 AM, David Steele wrote:
On 2/1/17 12:53 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 6:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
2017-04-04 22:05 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO :
>
> After some discussions about what could be useful since psql scripts now
> accepts tests, this patch sets a few variables which can be used by psql
> after a "front door" (i.e. actually typed by the user) query:
>
> - RESULT_STATUS: the status of the
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> s/Avoid/Allow to avoid/
WFM.
>> + *
>> + * Callers cannot rely on memory for tuple in returned slot remaining valid
>> + * past any subsequent manipulation of the sorter, such as another fetch of
>> + * input from sorter. (The sorter may re
Hi,
Andres nagged to me about valgrind runs taking much longer since
9fab40ad introduced the SlabContext into reorderbuffer.c. And by
"longer" I mean hours instead of minutes.
After a bit of investigation I stumbled on this line in slab.c:
VALGRIND_MAKE_MEM_DEFINED(chunk, SlabChunkGetPoint
On 2017-03-13 18:14:07 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> From 5351b5db257cb39832647d9117465c0217e6268b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Peter Geoghegan
> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:54:31 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Avoid copying within tuplesort_gettupleslot().
s/Avoid/Allow to avoid/
> Add a "cop
On 2017-04-04 22:32:40 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I'm much happier with this. I'm still fixing some issues in the tests
> for 03 and tidying them up, but 03 should allow 01 and 02 to be
> reviewed in their proper context now.
To me this very clearly is too late for v10, and now should be moved t
On 2017-04-04 08:01:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I don't think the parallel seqscan is comparable in complexity with the
> > parallel append case. Each worker there does the same kind of work, and
> > if one of them is behind, it'll just
After some discussions about what could be useful since psql scripts now
accepts tests, this patch sets a few variables which can be used by psql
after a "front door" (i.e. actually typed by the user) query:
- RESULT_STATUS: the status of the query
- ERROR: whether the query failed
- ERROR
On 4/4/17 12:55 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>
> As I am not seeing any response from Tomas for last 2-3 days and since
> the commit-fest is coming towards end, I have planned to work on the
> review comments that I had given few days back and submit the updated
> patch. PFA new version of patch tha
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 3:07 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova
wrote:
>> * I think that we should store this (the number of attributes), and
>> use it directly when comparing, per my remarks to Tom over on that
>> other thread. We should also use the free bit within
>> IndexTupleData.t_info, to indicate th
Thanks. I planned to look into this today, but you've been faster ;-)
regards
Tomas
On 04/04/2017 06:55 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
Hi,
As I am not seeing any response from Tomas for last 2-3 days and since
the commit-fest is coming towards end, I have planned to work on the
review comments tha
On 04/04/2017 09:55 AM, David Rowley wrote:
On 1 April 2017 at 04:25, David Rowley wrote:
I've attached an updated patch.
I've made another pass at this and ended up removing the tryextstats
variable. We now only try to use extended statistics when
clauselist_selectivity() is given a valid Re
So this is what I came up with on plane. Generalized the loading
functionality into load_library_function which that can load either
known postgres functions or call load_external_function.
I am not quite sure if fmgr.c is best place to put it, but I didn't want
to include stuff from executor in b
Michael Paquier writes:
> In builds where USE_ASSERT_CHECKING is not enabled, costsize.c can
> generate warnings. Here is for example with MSVC:
> src/backend/optimizer/path/costsize.c(4520): warning C4101: 'rte' :
> unreferenced local variable [C:\Users\ioltas\git\postgres\postgres.vcxproj]
>
On 04/04/2017 06:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
wrote:
2. the server restarts automatically, initialize
BackgroundWorkerData->parallel_register_co
On 2017-04-04 13:06:13 +0300, Stas Kelvich wrote:
> That is just argument against Andres concern that prepared transaction
> is able to deadlock with decoding process — at least no such cases in
> regression tests.
There's few longer / adverse xacts, that doesn't say much.
> And that concern is
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 4/3/17 14:19, Andres Freund wrote:
> + *op->resvalue =
> Int64GetDatum(nextval_internal(op->d.nextvalueexpr.seqid, false));
>> Is it guaranteed that the caller expects an int64? I saw that
>> nextvalueexpr's have a typeid field.
> It expects on
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Stas Kelvich wrote:
>
>> On 4 Apr 2017, at 04:23, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>>
>> I reviewed this patch but when I tried to build contrib/test_decoding
>> I got the following error.
>>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Yes, seems that 18ce3a4a changed ProcessUtility_hook signature.
2017-04-04 15:40 GMT+02:00 Vicky Vergara :
> Thanks,
>
>
> > It is not safe due views - that are saved in post analyze form.
>
>
> What is post analyze form? any link that you can give me to read about it?
>
The Query pipe line is: parsing, analyze, optimalization, execution
when you change a AP
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Ashutosh Bapat <
ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>
Thankfully since native partitioning still uses inheritance internally
for the most part, pg_partman works pretty well without nearly as much
change as I thought I would need.
On 04/04/2017 09:55 AM, Mike Palmiotto wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
>> On 04/04/2017 06:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> 0002 looks extremely straightforward, but I wonder if we could get one
> of the people
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 04/04/2017 06:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
0002 looks extremely straightforward, but I wonder if we could get one
of the people on this list who knows about sepgsql to have a look?
Hi,
As I am not seeing any response from Tomas for last 2-3 days and since
the commit-fest is coming towards end, I have planned to work on the
review comments that I had given few days back and submit the updated
patch. PFA new version of patch that takes care of all the review
comments given by
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
>> wrote:
>>> 2. the server restarts automatically, initialize
>>> BackgroundWorkerData->parallel_register_count and
>>> BackgroundWorkerData
On 3/30/17 22:47, Vitaly Burovoy wrote:
> It seemed not very hard to fix it.
> Please find attached patch to be applied on top of your one.
>
> I've added more tests to cover different cases of changing bounds when
> data type is changed.
Committed all that. Thanks!
--
Peter Eisentraut
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Hmm, you're right. It could be counted with a separate variable
> initialized to 0 and incremented every time we decide to add a row to the
> final set of sampled rows, although different implementations of
> AcquireSampleRowsFunc have differe
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Vicky Vergara wrote:
> you answered so fast that I know I am stepping into dangerous grounds.
>
> But I would like to know more about your experience.
>
> Any links that you can give me to read about the code and/or issues
> regarding the ip4r experience?
I can't c
On 4/4/17 11:42 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net) wrote:
>> On 3/22/17 4:42 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On 3/22/17 15:14, Stephen Frost wrote:
> -SELECT * FROM pg_stop_backup(false);
> +SELECT * FROM pg_stop_backup(false [, true ]);
>
> I think that
On 01.03.2017 13:53, Maksim Milyutin wrote:
Hi hackers!
As I've understood from thread [1] the main issue of creating local
indexes for partitions is supporting REINDEX and DROP INDEX operations
on parent partitioned tables. Furthermore Robert Haas mentioned the
problem of creating index on key
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:21 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 4 April 2017 at 13:35, Claudio Freire wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Claudio Freire
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:52 PM, David Rowley
>>> wrote:
> One last observation:
>
> +/*
> + * An
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:12 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> Result Comparison
>
> Master median tps Patch median tps comparison
> Test 1 6993.7 6714.3 104.16%
> Test 2 7053.1 6921.6 101.90%
> Test 3 5137.2 4954.2 103.69%
> Test 4 27.1 19.4 139.72%
> Test 5 54.1 51.4 105.28%
> Test 6 9328.1 9478.2 98.42%
On 23.03.2017 15:45, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
Done. Also, I added regression tests and revised code and comments a
bit. (As for create_foreignscan_path(), I haven't done anything about
that yet.) Please find attached a new version created on top of [1].
Thank you!
I didn't notice that it is ne
* David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net) wrote:
> On 3/22/17 4:42 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >On 3/22/17 15:14, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >>>-SELECT * FROM pg_stop_backup(false);
> >>>+SELECT * FROM pg_stop_backup(false [, true ]);
> >>>
> >>>I think that it's better to get rid of "[" and "]" from the
Greetings,
* Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 31 March 2017 at 04:29, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > Unless people wish to object, I'll use Michael's patch to remove
> > --verbose from the top level tomorrow.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> Maybe add
>
> To get more detailed output from test
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
