Re: [HACKERS] contrib/bloom wal-check not run by default

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Why $subject? > > Does it just need to be wired into the makefiles a bit better? Looks like an oversight to me. I would suggest changing the Makefile like that: diff --git a/contrib/bloom/Makefile

Re: [HACKERS] Implementation of SASLprep for SCRAM-SHA-256

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Here are some characters that seem plausible to be misinterpreted and > ignored by SASLprep: > EUC-JP and EUC-JISX0213: > > U+00AD (C2 AD): 足 (meaning "foot", per Unihan database) > U+FE00-FE0F (EF B8 8X): 鏝 (meaning

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM authentication, take three

On 04/11/2017 04:52 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 4/10/17 04:27, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: One thing to consider is that we just made the decision that "md5" actually means "md5 or scram-sha-256". Extrapolating from that, I think we'll want "scram-sha-256" to mean "scram-sha-256 or

[HACKERS] Host variables corresponding bytea type in ecpg

Hi, I tried to use the bytea type with ecpg, but the corresponding host variable was not described in the manual. https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/ecpg-variables.html#ecpg-variables-type-mapping According to the test code, the bytea type seems to correspond to char *.

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench --progress-timestamp no longer works correctly

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:58:07AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > --progress-timestamp is supposed to make -P report a Unix Epoch time stamp, > for easy correlation with the entries in other log files (like the postgres > server log file using %n). > > But that broke in this commit: > > commit

Re: [HACKERS] Letting the client choose the protocol to use during a SASL exchange

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 04/10/2017 09:33 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: >> - If the username used is the one sent in the startup message, rather >> than leaving it empty in the client-first-message, I would force it to >> be the same

[HACKERS] Re: pgsql: Use SASLprep to normalize passwords for SCRAM authentication.

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 11:58:10AM +, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > No documentation changes included, because there is no details on the > SCRAM mechanism in the docs anyway. An overview on that in the protocol > specification would probably be good, even though SCRAM is documented in > detail

Re: [HACKERS] Ongoing issues with representation of empty arrays

> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes: >> First is contrib/intarray, _AGAIN_ (see past bugs such as #7730): >> ... >> I plan to fix this one properly, unless anyone has any objections. Tom> Just to clarify, what do you think is "properly"? I would say, that any time an

Re: [HACKERS] Ongoing issues with representation of empty arrays

Andrew Gierth writes: > The distinction between the standard representation of '{}' as an array > with zero dimensions and nonstandard representations as a 1-dimensional > array with zero elements has come up in a couple of contexts on the IRC > channel recently. >

[HACKERS] PostGIS Raster - Loading MrSID format

Hi, I am trying to use the raster2pgsql tool to import raster images in MrSID format to PostGIS database on a Windows system. However, I get an error indicating that the format is not supported which I could confirm by running: raster2pgsql -G Please, could someone help with the basic steps to

Re: [HACKERS] error handling in RegisterBackgroundWorker

Noah Misch writes: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 09:36:59PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> If history had been different, we could have implemented, say, >> autovacuum or walreceiver on the background worker framework. I think >> unifying some of that might actually be a future

Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Small issue in online devel documentation build

On 4/8/17 12:50, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> What other problems do we have with pgweb that I can work on? > > Well, the 10devel documentation doesn't believe in orange. Compare: > >

[HACKERS] PostGIS Out-DB Raster Not Behaving As Expected

Hi All, I created an out-db raster using the following syntax: raster2pgsql -s {srid} -c -R -I -C -F -t auto {absolute_file_path} public.{table} | psql -h {host} -p {port} -d {database} -U {user} The table was created successfully. I wanted to confirm that the actual file is being read from the

Re: [HACKERS] src/interfaces/libpq shipping nmake-related Makefiles

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: > Are these votes for getting rid of both win32.mak and bcc32.mak? > >> PFA a patch that does this. Did I miss something? :) > > Perhaps we should get rid of the

Re: [HACKERS] error handling in RegisterBackgroundWorker

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 09:36:59PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 4/9/17 22:40, Noah Misch wrote: > > Agreed. There are times when starting up degraded beats failing to start, > > particularly when the failing component has complicated dependencies. In > > this > > case, as detailed

Re: [HACKERS] SUBSCRIPTIONS and pg_upgrade

Peter, * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 4/10/17 20:55, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > >> Problem 1: pg_subscription.subconninfo can only be read by superuser. > >> So non-superusers cannot dump

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM authentication, take three

On 4/10/17 04:27, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > One thing to consider is that we just made the decision that "md5" > actually means "md5 or scram-sha-256". Extrapolating from that, I think > we'll want "scram-sha-256" to mean "scram-sha-256 or scram-sha-256-plus" > (i.e. the channel-bonding

Re: [HACKERS] Ongoing issues with representation of empty arrays

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Andrew Gierth wrote: > Second is aclitem[], past bug #8395 which was not really resolved; empty > ACLs are actually 1-dim arrays of length 0, and all the ACL functions > insist on that, which means that you can't call aclexplode('{}')

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM authentication, take three

On 4/9/17 19:19, Noah Misch wrote: > These are the two chief approaches I'm seeing: > > 1. scram-sha-256, scram-sha-256-plus, and successors will be their own >pg_hba.conf authentication methods. Until and unless someone implements an >ability to name multiple methods per HBA line, you

Re: [HACKERS] Repetitive code in RI triggers

On 4/10/17 11:55, Ildar Musin wrote: > I was looking through the RI triggers code recently and noticed a few > almost identical functions, e.g. ri_restrict_upd() and > ri_restrict_del(). The following patch is an attempt to reduce some of > repetitive code. That looks like something worth

Re: [HACKERS] error handling in RegisterBackgroundWorker

On 4/9/17 22:40, Noah Misch wrote: > Agreed. There are times when starting up degraded beats failing to start, > particularly when the failing component has complicated dependencies. In this > case, as detailed upthread, this can only fail in response to basic > misconfiguration. It's not the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby" GUC pseudo-variable.

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Based on that we seem to agree here, should we add this as an open item? > Clearly if we want to change this, we should do so before 10. This really is a new feature, so as the focus is to stabilize things I think

Re: [HACKERS] SUBSCRIPTIONS and pg_upgrade

On 4/10/17 20:55, Stephen Frost wrote: > Peter, > > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> Problem 1: pg_subscription.subconninfo can only be read by superuser. >> So non-superusers cannot dump subscriptions. > > I'm not particularly happy with this. Why? How?

[HACKERS] Ongoing issues with representation of empty arrays

The distinction between the standard representation of '{}' as an array with zero dimensions and nonstandard representations as a 1-dimensional array with zero elements has come up in a couple of contexts on the IRC channel recently. First is contrib/intarray, _AGAIN_ (see past bugs such as

Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

Hello, thank you for looking this. At Fri, 07 Apr 2017 20:38:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in <27309.1491611...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > Interesting. I wonder if it's possible that a relcache invalidation > > would cause these values

Re: [HACKERS] SUBSCRIPTIONS and pg_upgrade

Peter, * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > Problem 1: pg_subscription.subconninfo can only be read by superuser. > So non-superusers cannot dump subscriptions. I'm not particularly happy with this. > Precedent is pg_user_mapping. In that case, we just omit the >

Re: [HACKERS] ExecPrepareExprList and per-query context

On 2017/04/08 1:49, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Langote writes: >> Should ExecPrepareExprList also switch to estate->es_query_cxt? > > Good point; I'm surprised we haven't noted any failures from that. > We surely want the entire result data structure to be in the same

Re: [HACKERS] Compiler warning in costsize.c

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 4:02 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> ilm...@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?=) writes: >>> Why bother with the 'rte' variable at all if it's only used for the >>>

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] ERROR: badly formatted node string "RESTRICTINFO...

I wrote: > (BTW, I've not yet looked to see if this needs to be back-ported.) postgres_fdw will definitely include RestrictInfos in its fdw_private list in 9.6. However, I've been unable to provoke a visible failure. After some rooting around, the reason seems to be that: 1. postgres_fdw

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stats_ext view does not seem all that useful

Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 04/10/2017 12:12 PM, David Rowley wrote: > > During my review and time spent working on the functional dependencies > > part of extended statistics I wondered what was the use for the > > pg_stats_ext view. I was unsure why the length of the serialised > > dependencies was

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

Hi, On 2017-04-08 23:36:13 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2017-04-05 09:36:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > By the way, the "Converting WARM chains back to HOT chains" section of > > > README.WARM seems to be

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stats_ext view does not seem all that useful

On 04/10/2017 12:12 PM, David Rowley wrote: During my review and time spent working on the functional dependencies part of extended statistics I wondered what was the use for the pg_stats_ext view. I was unsure why the length of the serialised dependencies was useful. Perhaps we could improve

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 11:36:13PM +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > Thank you all for the  reviews, feedback, tests, criticism. And apologies for > keep pushing it till the last minute even though it was clear to me quite some > time back the patch is not going to make it. But if I'd given up, it

Re: [HACKERS] strange parallel query behavior after OOM crashes

On 04/10/2017 01:39 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote: On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Neha Khatri wrote: The problem here seem to be the change in the max_parallel_workers value while the parallel workers

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] ERROR: badly formatted node string "RESTRICTINFO...

I wrote: > Apparently, postgres_fdw is trying to store RestrictInfos in the > fdw_private field of a ForeignScan node. That won't do; those aren't > supposed to be present in a finished plan tree, so there's no readfuncs.c > support for them (and we're not adding it). > Don't know if this is a

Re: [HACKERS] "left shift of negative value" warnings

On 10/04/17 22:19, Andres Freund wrote: > I guess the motivation is that it's not entirely clear what happens with > the sign bit, when shifting. Indeed, certain one's complement CPUs even "outlived" C99 by a small margin, as it were:

Re: [HACKERS] Some thoughts about SCRAM implementation

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > That can equally be said about about a lot of features. If we don't > stop at some point... Also, we're not late in the CF cycle, the CF cycle > for v10 is over. It's not like the non-existance of channel binding >

Re: [HACKERS] strange parallel query behavior after OOM crashes

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Neha Khatri wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> 1. Forget BGW_NEVER_RESTART workers in >> ResetBackgroundWorkerCrashTimes() rather than leaving them around to >> be cleaned up after the

Re: [HACKERS] "left shift of negative value" warnings

On 2017-04-10 15:25:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2017-04-09 19:20:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> As I read that, it's only "undefined" if overflow would occur (ie > >> the sign bit would change). Your compiler is being a useless annoying > >>

Re: [HACKERS] Letting the client choose the protocol to use during a SASL exchange

On 10/04/17 21:41, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 04/10/2017 09:33 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: Thanks for posting the patched HTML. In my opinion, all looks good except that: - I will add an extra String (a CSV) to AuthenticationSASL message for channel binding names, so that

Re: [HACKERS] Letting the client choose the protocol to use during a SASL exchange

On 04/10/2017 09:33 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: Thanks for posting the patched HTML. In my opinion, all looks good except that: - I will add an extra String (a CSV) to AuthenticationSASL message for channel binding names, so that message format can remain without changes when

Re: [HACKERS] "left shift of negative value" warnings

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-04-09 19:20:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> As I read that, it's only "undefined" if overflow would occur (ie >> the sign bit would change). Your compiler is being a useless annoying >> nanny, but that seems to be the in thing for compiler authors

Re: [HACKERS] "left shift of negative value" warnings

On 2017-04-09 19:20:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > For a while I've been getting warnings like > > /home/andres/src/postgresql/src/backend/utils/adt/inet_cidr_ntop.c: In > > function ‘inet_cidr_ntop_ipv6’: > >

Re: [HACKERS] Somebody has not thought through subscription locking considerations

On 3/31/17 20:25, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 01/04/17 01:57, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> That being said, looking at use-cases for SetSubscriptionRelState that's >> basically CREATE SUBSCRIPTION, ALTER SUBSCRIPTION REFRESH and tablesync >> worker. So the DDL thing applies to first ones as well and

Re: [HACKERS] recent deadlock regression test failures

Thomas Munro writes: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Maybe it's impossible for a parallel worker to acquire its own >> snapshot at all, in which case this is moot. But I'm nervous. > Parallel workers can't acquire

Re: [HACKERS] valgrind errors around dsa.c

On 2017-04-08 14:46:04 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > Fix attached. Thanks. Pushed! Andres -- 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] Compiler warning in costsize.c

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > ilm...@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?=) writes: >> Why bother with the 'rte' variable at all if it's only used for the >> Assert()ing the rtekind? > > That was proposed a few messages back. I don't like

Re: [HACKERS] recent deadlock regression test failures

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Kevin Grittner writes: >> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I notice that the safe-snapshot code path is not paying attention to >>> parallel-query cases, unlike the

Re: [HACKERS] GSOC'17 project introduction: Parallel COPY execution with errors handling

Yes, sure, I don't doubt it. The question was around step 4 in the following possible algorithm: 1. Suppose we have to insert N records 2. Start subtransaction with these N records 3. Error is raised on k-th line 4. Then, we know that we can safely insert all lines from the 1st till (k - 1) 5.

Re: [HACKERS] recent deadlock regression test failures

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Kevin Grittner writes: >> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I notice that the safe-snapshot code path is not paying attention to >>> parallel-query cases, unlike the

Re: [HACKERS] Letting the client choose the protocol to use during a SASL exchange

On 10/04/17 14:57, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 04/07/2017 01:13 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: I don't see it. The message AuthenticationSASL.String could contain a CSV of the SCRAM protocols supported. This

Re: [HACKERS] strange parallel query behavior after OOM crashes

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > 1. Forget BGW_NEVER_RESTART workers in > ResetBackgroundWorkerCrashTimes() rather than leaving them around to > be cleaned up after the conclusion of the restart, so that they go > away before rather than after shared

Re: [HACKERS] Some thoughts about SCRAM implementation

On 2017-04-10 20:28:27 +0200, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: > > > On 10/04/17 13:02, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > On 04/10/2017 12:39 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: > > > - I think channel binding support should be added. SCRAM brings security > > > improvements over md5 and other

Re: [HACKERS] Some thoughts about SCRAM implementation

On 10/04/17 13:02, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 04/10/2017 12:39 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: - I think channel binding support should be added. SCRAM brings security improvements over md5 and other simpler digest algorithms. But where it really shines is together with channel binding.

Re: [HACKERS] recent deadlock regression test failures

Kevin Grittner writes: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I notice that the safe-snapshot code path is not paying attention to >> parallel-query cases, unlike the lock code path. I'm not sure how >> big a deal that is... > Parallel

Re: [HACKERS] Compiler warning in costsize.c

ilm...@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?=) writes: > Why bother with the 'rte' variable at all if it's only used for the > Assert()ing the rtekind? That was proposed a few messages back. I don't like it because it makes these functions look different from the other

Re: [HACKERS] Compiler warning in costsize.c

Robert Haas writes: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I wonder if we shouldn't just do >>> ... >>> and eat the "useless" calculation of rte. >

Re: [HACKERS] SUBSCRIPTIONS and pg_upgrade

OK, we need to come to a conclusion here. To summarize: Problem 1: pg_subscription.subconninfo can only be read by superuser. So non-superusers cannot dump subscriptions. Precedent is pg_user_mapping. In that case, we just omit the user-mapping options if we're not a superuser. Pretty

Re: [HACKERS] Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion

2017-04-10 13:07 GMT+02:00 Greg Stark : > On 2 April 2017 at 07:53, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Note that this is already available indirectly, as show in the > > documentation. > > > > SELECT some-boolean-expression AS okay \gset > > \if :okay > > \echo

Re: [HACKERS] recent deadlock regression test failures

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Thomas Munro writes: >> Here's a pair of draft patches for review: Thanks. > Pushed with cosmetic improvements. Thanks. > I notice that the safe-snapshot code path is not paying attention to

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication and SIGHUP

On 4/9/17 23:20, Michael Paquier wrote: > After more review, I think that got_SIGTERM should be of type volatile > sig_atomic_t in launcher.c or that's not signal-safe. I think as well > that for correctness errno should be saved as SetLatch() is called and > restored afterwards. Please find

[HACKERS] tablesync patch broke the assumption that logical rep depends on?

Hi, src/backend/replication/logical/launcher.c * Worker started and attached to our shmem. This check is safe * because only launcher ever starts the workers, so nobody can steal * the worker slot. The tablesync patch enabled even worker to start another

Re: [HACKERS] Compiler warning in costsize.c

Tom Lane writes: > I wonder if we shouldn't just do > > RangeTblEntry *rte PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY; > ListCell *lc; > > /* Should only be applied to base relations that are subqueries */ > Assert(rel->relid > 0); > -#ifdef USE_ASSERT_CHECKING >

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication worker and statistics

> On 10 Apr 2017, at 19:50, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > On 4/10/17 05:49, Stas Kelvich wrote: >> Here is small patch to call statistics in logical worker. Originally i >> thought that stat >> collection during logical replication should manually account

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade vs extension upgrades

Magnus Hagander writes: > After you've run pg_upgrade, you have to loop through all your databases > and do an "ALTER EXTENSION abc UPDATE" once for each extension. > Is there a reason we shouldn't have pg_upgrade emit a script that does > this, similar to how it emits a

Re: [HACKERS] GSOC'17 project introduction: Parallel COPY execution with errors handling

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Alex K wrote: > (1) It seems that starting new subtransaction at step 4 is not necessary. We > can just gather all error lines in one pass and at the end of input start > the only one additional subtransaction with all safe-lines at

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade vs extension upgrades

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > After you've run pg_upgrade, you have to loop through all your databases and > do an "ALTER EXTENSION abc UPDATE" once for each extension. > > Is there a reason we shouldn't have pg_upgrade emit a script that does

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication worker and statistics

On 4/9/17 22:20, Noah Misch wrote: > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Peter, > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open > item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a > v10 open item, please let

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication worker and statistics

On 4/10/17 05:49, Stas Kelvich wrote: > Here is small patch to call statistics in logical worker. Originally i > thought that stat > collection during logical replication should manually account amounts of > changed tuples, > but seems that it is already smoothly handled on relation level. So

Re: [HACKERS] Compiler warning in costsize.c

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I wonder if we shouldn't just do >> >> RangeTblEntry *rte PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY; >> ListCell *lc; >> >> /*

Re: [HACKERS] tuple-routing and constraint violation error message, revisited

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> Summary is: We decided in f1b4c771ea7 [1] that passing the original slot >> (one containing the tuple formatted per

Re: [HACKERS] src/interfaces/libpq shipping nmake-related Makefiles

Magnus Hagander writes: Are these votes for getting rid of both win32.mak and bcc32.mak? > PFA a patch that does this. Did I miss something? :) Perhaps we should get rid of the WIN32_ONLY_COMPILER symbol altogether; given this patch, "#ifdef WIN32_ONLY_COMPILER" could

Re: [HACKERS] max_sync_workers_per_subscription is missing in postgresql.conf

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Petr Jelinek > wrote: >> On 10/04/17 07:16, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Attached a patch for $subject. >>> >>> I added this parameter

Re: [HACKERS] GCC 7 warnings

Peter Eisentraut writes: > Possible fixes: > a) Ignore, hoping GCC will change before final release. (unlikely at > this point) > b) Add compiler option to disable this particular warning, worry about > it later. (Might be an option for backpatching.) > c)

Re: Adding lfirst_node (was Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Planner crash on foreign table join)

On 2017-04-10 12:20:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Barring objections, I'll push this shortly. +1, to just about all of it -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Adding lfirst_node (was Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Planner crash on foreign table join)

I wrote: > Andrew Gierth writes: >> In a discussion with Andres on the hash grouping sets review thread, I >> proposed that we should have something of the form >> #define lfirst_node(_type_, l) (castNode(_type_,lfirst(l))) > That seems like a fairly good idea. A

Re: [HACKERS] GCC 7 warnings

On 2017-04-10 09:10:07 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017-04-10 11:03:23 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > The release of GCC 7 is approaching [0], and the number of warnings in > > PostgreSQL has gone up since we last looked [1]. Output attached. (My > > version is 7.0.1 20170408.)

Re: [HACKERS] GCC 7 warnings

Hi, On 2017-04-10 11:03:23 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > The release of GCC 7 is approaching [0], and the number of warnings in > PostgreSQL has gone up since we last looked [1]. Output attached. (My > version is 7.0.1 20170408.) > > Most of the issues have to do with concatenating two or

[HACKERS] Repetitive code in RI triggers

Hi all, I was looking through the RI triggers code recently and noticed a few almost identical functions, e.g. ri_restrict_upd() and ri_restrict_del(). The following patch is an attempt to reduce some of repetitive code. Yet there is still room for improvement. Thanks, -- Ildar Musin

Re: [HACKERS] GSOC'17 project introduction: Parallel COPY execution with errors handling

Hi Alexander! I've missed your reply, since proposal submission deadline have passed last Monday and I didn't check hackers mailing list too frequently. (1) It seems that starting new subtransaction at step 4 is not necessary. We can just gather all error lines in one pass and at the end of

Re: [HACKERS] GCC 7 warnings

Hi Peter, > c) Expand the target buffer sizes until the warning goes away. (Sample > patch attached.) I personally think it's a great patch. Unfortunately I don't have GCC 7.0 right now but at least it doesn't break anything on 6.3.1. Since there is no rush I would suggest to add an entry to

Re: [HACKERS] Merge join for GiST

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Andrew Borodin wrote: > I think this idea is somewhat related to this patch [2], but as for > now cannot describe how exactly GiST merge and Range Merge features > relate. It also seems somewhat related to Peter Moser's work on ALIGN and

Re: [HACKERS] RMT: Use Visual Studio 2015 for Compiling and linking the Windows version in PG10

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Hans Buschmann wrote: > On 03/28/2017 06:46 AM, I wrote in pgsql-general: >> I use Postgres on Windows 64 bit (8.1,10,WS2012R2,WS2016) for quite a >> while. >> I always install and upgrade from the ZIP binary distribution from >> enterpriseDB

[HACKERS] pg_upgrade vs extension upgrades

After you've run pg_upgrade, you have to loop through all your databases and do an "ALTER EXTENSION abc UPDATE" once for each extension. Is there a reason we shouldn't have pg_upgrade emit a script that does this, similar to how it emits a script to run ANALYZE? -- Magnus Hagander Me:

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump emits ALTER TABLE ONLY partitioned_table

On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > While I admit that I've not been paying close attention to the whole > table partitioning business, I wonder whether we have any clearly written > down specification about (a) how much partition member tables are allowed > to

[HACKERS] RMT: Use Visual Studio 2015 for Compiling and linking the Windows version in PG10

On 03/28/2017 06:46 AM, I wrote in pgsql-general: > > I use Postgres on Windows 64 bit (8.1,10,WS2012R2,WS2016) for quite a while. > I always install and upgrade from the ZIP binary distribution from > enterpriseDB which works like a charm. > > In a recent fresh install I noticed that PostgreSQL

Re: [HACKERS] strange parallel query behavior after OOM crashes

[ Adding Julien, whose patch this was. ] On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote: > While performing StartupDatabase, both master and standby server > behave in similar way till postmaster spawns startup process. > In master, startup process completes its

[HACKERS] contrib/bloom wal-check not run by default

Why $subject? Does it just need to be wired into the makefiles a bit better? -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make

[HACKERS] GCC 7 warnings

The release of GCC 7 is approaching [0], and the number of warnings in PostgreSQL has gone up since we last looked [1]. Output attached. (My version is 7.0.1 20170408.) Most of the issues have to do with concatenating two or more strings of potential size MAXPGPATH into another buffer of size

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

Hi Rahila, I tried to review the code, and here are some of my early comments: 1. When I configure using "-Werror", I see unused variable in function DefineRelation: tablecmds.c: In function ‘DefineRelation’: tablecmds.c:761:17: error: unused variable ‘partdesc’ [-Werror=unused-variable]

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

Hi Rahila, With your latest patch: Consider a case when a table is partitioned on a boolean key. Even when there are existing separate partitions for 'true' and 'false', still default partition can be created. I think this should not be allowed. Consider following case: postgres=#

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump emits ALTER TABLE ONLY partitioned_table

Stephen Frost writes: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> While I admit that I've not been paying close attention to the whole >> table partitioning business, I wonder whether we have any clearly written >> down specification about (a) how much partition member tables

Re: [HACKERS] recent deadlock regression test failures

Thomas Munro writes: > Here's a pair of draft patches for review: Pushed with cosmetic improvements. I notice that the safe-snapshot code path is not paying attention to parallel-query cases, unlike the lock code path. I'm not sure how big a deal that is...

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump emits ALTER TABLE ONLY partitioned_table

Tom, Robert, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > I would appreciate help from other contributors and committers on this > > open item; pg_dump is not my strong point. In the absence of such > > help, I will do my best with it. I will set

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication and SIGHUP

Petr Jelinek writes: > On 10/04/17 14:40, Tom Lane wrote: >> Umm ... you're doing what? > We are doing: > + SetConfigOption("synchronous_commit", > + MySubscription->synccommit ? > "local" : "off", > +

Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Small issue in online devel documentation build

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:17:26AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > didn't that that happened in the old docs, but I can use an href filter > to do it only for docs of versions starting with '1' or saying 'devel'. > > That said, doing something like this would probably be cleaner. However,

Re: [HACKERS] src/interfaces/libpq shipping nmake-related Makefiles

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Magnus Hagander writes: > >> Are these votes for getting rid of both win32.mak and bcc32.mak? > > > > I'm for it. >

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Sync pg_dump and pg_dumpall output

On 04/10/2017 12:43 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >> This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send >> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent >> status >>

Re: [HACKERS] Letting the client choose the protocol to use during a SASL exchange

On 04/07/2017 01:13 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: I don't see it. The message AuthenticationSASL.String could contain a CSV of the SCRAM protocols supported. This is specially important to support channel

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication and SIGHUP

On 10/04/17 14:40, Tom Lane wrote: > Petr Jelinek writes: >> Looks good to me. Just as a note, we'll have to handle this newly >> supported config rereads in the async commit patch where we override >> synchronous_commit GUC, but the config reread will change it

  1   2   >