Re: [HACKERS] PG10 Partitioned tables and relation_is_updatable()

On 13 June 2017 at 05:50, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Dean Rasheed > wrote: >> My initial thought, looking at the patch, is that it might be better >> to have all the macros in one file to make them easier to maintain. > > Right now the macros are listed just below

Re: [HACKERS] RTE_NAMEDTUPLESTORE, enrtuples and comments

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 04:04:23PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 11:11 PM, Thomas Munro > wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > >> This fourth point is not necessarily a defect: I wonder if RangeTblEntry is > >> the right place for enrtuples. It's

Re: [HACKERS] Get stuck when dropping a subscription during synchronizing table

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 01:59:51PM +0530, tushar wrote: > After applying all your patches, drop subscription no more hangs while > dropping subscription but there is an error "ERROR: tuple concurrently > updated" in the log file of > standby. > > --- > logical replication synchronization work

[HACKERS] pg_receivewal and messages printed in non-verbose mode

Hi all, I have noticed that the following messages can show up from pg_receivewal even if the verbose mode is not used: if (prevtimeline != 0 && prevtimeline != timeline) fprintf(stderr, _("%s: switched to timeline %u at %X/%X\n"), progname,

Re: [HACKERS] pg_subscription_rel entry can be updated concurrently

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 13/06/17 02:52, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I often get an error "ERROR: tuple concurrently updated" when >> changing subscription state(ALTER SUBSCRIPTION or DROP SUBSCRIPTION). >> The cause of this error is that table sync worker

Re: [HACKERS] pg_subscription_rel entry can be updated concurrently

On 13/06/17 02:52, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Hi, > > I often get an error "ERROR: tuple concurrently updated" when > changing subscription state(ALTER SUBSCRIPTION or DROP SUBSCRIPTION). > The cause of this error is that table sync worker and apply worker can > try to update the same tuple in pg_s

Re: [HACKERS] Dropping partitioned table drops a previously detached partition

Hi Ashutosh, On 2017/06/12 20:56, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Hi, > If we detach a partition and drop the corresponding partitioned table, > it drops the once-partition now-standalone table as well. Thanks for the report. Looks like 8b4d582d279d78 missed the bit about drop_parent_dependency() that y

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 Partitioned tables and relation_is_updatable()

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote: > On 12 June 2017 at 17:51, Joe Conway wrote: >> On 06/12/2017 07:40 AM, Joe Conway wrote: >>> On 06/12/2017 01:49 AM, Amit Langote wrote: As he mentioned in his reply, Ashutosh's proposal to abstract away the relkind checks is inter

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 Partitioned tables and relation_is_updatable()

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > On 06/12/2017 07:40 AM, Joe Conway wrote: >> On 06/12/2017 01:49 AM, Amit Langote wrote: On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote: > It looks like relation_is_updatable() didn't get the message about > partitioned

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 Partitioned tables and relation_is_updatable()

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Amit Langote wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Dean Rasheed >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> It looks like relation_is_updatable() didn't get the message about >>> partitioned tables. Thus, for example, information_schema.views and >>> information_schema.column

Re: [HACKERS] macOS Sierra & System Integrity Protection

Robert Haas writes: > ... it turns out that System Integrity Protection > feature *also* prevents DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH from being inherited by > child processes in some manner. Yeah, this was already known and documented on the lists a year or two back. I suggest filing a bug report with Apple; if

[HACKERS] macOS Sierra & System Integrity Protection

I have a new MacBook Pro running Sierra. I managed to get PostgreSQL to build after install Xcode, installing MacPorts, installing the documentation toolchain via some incantation that was apparently wrong, and then uninstalling and reinstalling the documentation toolchain per https://trac.macport

[HACKERS] Why are we restricting exported snapshots in subtransactions?

Hi, ExportSnapshot() has, right at the beginning, the following block: /* * We cannot export a snapshot from a subtransaction because there's no * easy way for importers to verify that the same subtransaction is still * running. */ if (IsSubTransaction()) erepo

Re: [HACKERS] Race conditions with WAL sender PID lookups

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > 3) In walreceiver.c's pg_stat_get_wal_receiver's: > - Launch pg_stat_get_wal_receiver and take a checkpoint on it. > - Pass the lookups of pid and ready_to_display. > - Make the WAL receiver stop. > - The view reports inconsistent data. If t

[HACKERS] Fix a typo in shm_mq.c

Hi, Attached the patch for $subject. s/Whem/When/ Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center fix_typo_in_shm_mq_c.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity

On 2017-06-12 21:03:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > Possibly too hard to be precise enough in a hint, but a number of these > > could benefit from one suggesting moving things into FROM, using > > LATERAL. > > Maybe "You might be able to move the set-returning function into

Re: [HACKERS] pgrowlocks relkind check

On 2017/06/13 0:29, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 4/24/17 21:22, Amit Langote wrote: >> Hi Stephen, >> >> On 2017/04/11 22:17, Stephen Frost wrote: create extension pgrowlocks; create view one as select 1; select pgrowlocks('one'); -- ERROR: could not open file "base/68730/68748

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity

Andres Freund writes: > Possibly too hard to be precise enough in a hint, but a number of these > could benefit from one suggesting moving things into FROM, using > LATERAL. Maybe "You might be able to move the set-returning function into a LATERAL FROM item."? > I'm kinda positively surprised a

Re: [HACKERS] pg_subscription_rel entry can be updated concurrently

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Hi, > > I often get an error "ERROR: tuple concurrently updated" when > changing subscription state(ALTER SUBSCRIPTION or DROP SUBSCRIPTION). > The cause of this error is that table sync worker and apply worker can > try to update the same

[HACKERS] pg_subscription_rel entry can be updated concurrently

Hi, I often get an error "ERROR: tuple concurrently updated" when changing subscription state(ALTER SUBSCRIPTION or DROP SUBSCRIPTION). The cause of this error is that table sync worker and apply worker can try to update the same tuple in pg_subscription_rel. Especially it often happens when we d

Re: [HACKERS] ICU support on Windows

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 6:47 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: >> I do some low level packaging on Windows (libxml2, libxslt, etc.), and >> the compilation code usually allows you to usually use the >> installation paths you want. At the end using only lib/ looks more >> generic t

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity

On 2017-06-09 17:33:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/information_schema.sql > b/src/backend/catalog/information_schema.sql > index cbcd6cf..98bcfa0 100644 > --- a/src/backend/catalog/information_schema.sql > +++ b/src/backend/catalog/information_schema.sql > @@ -2936,12

Re: [HACKERS] Relpartbound, toasting and pg_class

Andres Freund writes: > I'm not quite sure where the aversion to adding a toast table to > pg_class is coming from? I'm not at all sure it would work, and would rather not introduce risks of infinite recursion if they're not necessary. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgs

Re: [HACKERS] Relpartbound, toasting and pg_class

On 2017-06-12 19:00:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2017-06-12 18:10:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> it'd be worthwhile checking some actual examples rather than guessing. > > > It's indeed not very compact. E.g a simple example with small types: > > > CREATE TABLE parti

Re: [HACKERS] Relpartbound, toasting and pg_class

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-06-12 18:10:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> it'd be worthwhile checking some actual examples rather than guessing. > It's indeed not very compact. E.g a simple example with small types: > CREATE TABLE partitioned(a int, b int, c timestamptz, data text) PARTITION BY

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

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 3:52 AM, Alexey Kondratov wrote: > I am not going to start with "speculative insertion" right now, but it would > be very > useful, if you give me a point, where to start. Maybe I will at least try to > evaluate > the complexity of the problem. Speculative insertion has th

Re: [HACKERS] Relpartbound, toasting and pg_class

On 2017-06-12 18:10:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> How about gathering some actual evidence on the point --- ie, how big > >> a partition expression do you need to make it fall over? > > > You'd need a 2kB expression (after compression) in > > relpartb

Re: [HACKERS] Transactional sequence stuff breaks pg_upgrade

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-06-12 17:35:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I thought about trying to insert an assert in GetNewOidWithIndex to >> ensure that no type OIDs are selected automatically during upgrade, >> but it seemed a bit too complicated. Might be a good idea to figure >> it out thou

Re: [HACKERS] Transactional sequence stuff breaks pg_upgrade

On 2017-06-12 17:35:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > In my opinion the problem of: > > > On 2017-06-12 17:13:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> assignments of relfilenodes have to be shortcircuited by pg_upgrade > >> override calls during a binary-restore run, or we risk filename

Re: [HACKERS] Relpartbound, toasting and pg_class

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> How about gathering some actual evidence on the point --- ie, how big >> a partition expression do you need to make it fall over? > You'd need a 2kB expression (after compression) in > relpartbound before you hit a problem here. I wouldn't worry about

Re: [HACKERS] Relpartbound, toasting and pg_class

Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2017-06-12 17:10:28 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> Cases where relacl became too large have been known to exist. I'm not > >> sure whether relpartbound can really be that large to change the > >> scenario significantly. > > > Because it's furth

Re: [HACKERS] ICU support on Windows

Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > >> Yes, that's right, Win64 download uses lib64 path and in my case i had > >> renamed lib64-> lib and bin64-> bin which i guess is not a right thing > >> to do. I think, we should allow

Re: [HACKERS] Relpartbound, toasting and pg_class

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-06-12 17:10:28 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Cases where relacl became too large have been known to exist. I'm not >> sure whether relpartbound can really be that large to change the >> scenario significantly. > Because it's further increasing the size by some

Re: [HACKERS] Transactional sequence stuff breaks pg_upgrade

Andres Freund writes: > In my opinion the problem of: > On 2017-06-12 17:13:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> assignments of relfilenodes have to be shortcircuited by pg_upgrade >> override calls during a binary-restore run, or we risk filename >> collisions. > should instead be solved by simply not

Re: pgindent (was Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Preventive maintenance in advance of pgindent run.)

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 09:14:36PM +, Piotr Stefaniak wrote: > I've never been too excited to improve indent and it's increasingly > challenging for me to force myself to work on it now, after I've > invested so much of my spare time into it. So please bear with me if > there are any errors. U

Re: [HACKERS] ICU support on Windows

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Ashutosh Sharma wrote: >> > I noticed that this only works if you use the "Win32" download of ICU, >> > because the "Win64" download uses "lib64" paths. I'm not sure what the >> > impact of this is in practice. >> >> Yes, that's right, Win6

Re: [HACKERS] Transactional sequence stuff breaks pg_upgrade

On 2017-06-12 17:13:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2017-06-11 20:03:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> @@ -391,6 +391,13 @@ GetNewRelFileNode(Oid reltablespace, Rel > >> bool collides; > >> BackendId backend; > >> > >> + /* > >> + * If we ever get here duri

Re: [HACKERS] Relpartbound, toasting and pg_class

On 2017-06-12 17:10:28 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/12/17 15:38, Andres Freund wrote: > > Just noticed that pg_class now has several varlena fields: > > #ifdef CATALOG_VARLEN /* variable-length fields start > > here */ > > /* NOTE: These fields are not present in

Re: [HACKERS] Transactional sequence stuff breaks pg_upgrade

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-06-11 20:03:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> @@ -391,6 +391,13 @@ GetNewRelFileNode(Oid reltablespace, Rel >> bool collides; >> BackendIdbackend; >> >> +/* >> + * If we ever get here during pg_upgrade, there's something wrong; all >> + * relfile

Re: [HACKERS] Why forcing Hot_standby_feedback to be enabled when creating a logical decoding slot on standby

Hi, On 2017-06-12 06:16:50 +, sanyam jain wrote: > I have created a logical decoding slot on a standby but i haven't enabled > Hot_standby_feedback.What are the test cases where this setup will fail? Creating logic slots on the standby is not supported... It'll simply currently not work cor

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Data at rest encryption

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> On 6/7/16 9:56 AM, Ants Aasma wrote: >>> >>> Similar things can be achieved with filesystem level encryption. >>> However this is not always optimal for various reasons. One of th

Re: [HACKERS] Relpartbound, toasting and pg_class

On 6/12/17 15:38, Andres Freund wrote: > Just noticed that pg_class now has several varlena fields: > #ifdef CATALOG_VARLEN /* variable-length fields start here */ > /* NOTE: These fields are not present in a relcache entry's rd_rel > field. */ > aclitem relacl[

Re: [HACKERS] Transactional sequence stuff breaks pg_upgrade

Hi, On 2017-06-11 20:03:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > I believe I've identified the reason why skink and some other buildfarm > > members have been failing the pg_upgrade test recently. > > ... > > Not sure what we want to do about it. One idea is to make > > ALTER SEQUENCE not so tran

Re: [HACKERS] v10beta pg_catalog diagrams

On 6/12/17 11:28, Neil Anderson wrote: > I'm cross posting from general. I did some work to diagram the > relationships in pg_catalog for v10. I would like to add it to the > developer FAQ here > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ#Is_there_a_diagram_of_the_system_catalogs_available.3

Re: [HACKERS] Transactional sequence stuff breaks pg_upgrade

Hi, On 2017-06-11 17:17:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I am not very sure why it's so hard to duplicate the misbehavior; perhaps, > in order to make the failure happen with the current regression tests, > it's necessary for a background auto-analyze to happen and consume some > OIDs (for pg_statistic

[HACKERS] Relpartbound, toasting and pg_class

Hi, Just noticed that pg_class now has several varlena fields: #ifdef CATALOG_VARLEN /* variable-length fields start here */ /* NOTE: These fields are not present in a relcache entry's rd_rel field. */ aclitem relacl[1]; /* access permissions

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Data at rest encryption

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/7/16 9:56 AM, Ants Aasma wrote: >> >> Similar things can be achieved with filesystem level encryption. >> However this is not always optimal for various reasons. One of the >> better reasons is the desire for HSM based encryption in

Re: [HACKERS] standby server crashes hard on out-of-disk-space in HEAD

On 2017-06-12 15:12:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > (On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > logfile from a standby server: > > > > 2017-06-12 11:43:46.450 EDT [13605] LOG: started streaming WAL from > > primary at 3/E600 on timeline 1 > > 2017-06-12 11:47:46.992 EDT [11261] FAT

Re: [HACKERS] Transition tables vs ON CONFLICT

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >>> I suppose you'll need two tuplestores for the ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE >>> case -- one for updated tuples, and the other for in

Re: [HACKERS] standby server crashes hard on out-of-disk-space in HEAD

(On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > logfile from a standby server: > > 2017-06-12 11:43:46.450 EDT [13605] LOG: started streaming WAL from primary > at 3/E600 on timeline 1 > 2017-06-12 11:47:46.992 EDT [11261] FATAL: could not extend file > "base/47578/54806": No space le

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication: \dRp+ and "for all tables"

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Janes writes: > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Masahiko Sawada > > wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Jeff Janes > wrote: > >>> That seems unfortunate. Should the "for all tables" be included as > >>> another column in \dRp

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 Partitioned tables and relation_is_updatable()

On 06/12/2017 11:33 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote: > On 12 June 2017 at 17:51, Joe Conway wrote: >> After looking I remain convinced - +1 in general. > > Yes, I think this will probably help, but I worry that it will turn > into quite a large and invasive patch, and there are a number of > design choice

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 Partitioned tables and relation_is_updatable()

On 12 June 2017 at 17:51, Joe Conway wrote: > On 06/12/2017 07:40 AM, Joe Conway wrote: >> On 06/12/2017 01:49 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >>> As he mentioned in his reply, Ashutosh's proposal to abstract away the >>> relkind checks is interesting in this regard. >>> >> I have not looked at Ashutosh's

Re: [HACKERS] ICU support on Windows

Hi, On Jun 12, 2017 11:43 PM, "Alvaro Herrera" wrote: Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > > I noticed that this only works if you use the "Win32" download of ICU, > > because the "Win64" download uses "lib64" paths. I'm not sure what the > > impact of this is in practice. > > Yes, that's right, Win64 down

Re: [HACKERS] ICU support on Windows

Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > > I noticed that this only works if you use the "Win32" download of ICU, > > because the "Win64" download uses "lib64" paths. I'm not sure what the > > impact of this is in practice. > > Yes, that's right, Win64 download uses lib64 path and in my case i had > renamed lib6

Re: [HACKERS] ICU support on Windows

Hi, On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/10/17 05:40, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: >> With the help of attached patch, we can use icu feature on Windows. >> All we have to do is, download the ICU libraries from - [1] and add >> the installation path for icu libraires in confi

Re: [HACKERS] Allowing dash character in LTREE

interesting, but I like '.' as path separator, it's url-friendly, and easy I used some simple `pathTEXT CHECK (path ~ '^[\w.-]+$')` but now I regret it, because it's not as easy to index and optimize requests 2017-05-21 11:28 GMT+02:00 Manuel Kniep : > > > > > Manuel Kniep > Danziger Str

Re: [HACKERS] Transactional sequence stuff breaks pg_upgrade

Tom Lane wrote: > On closer inspection, the only thing that pg_upgrade needs is to be > able to do ALTER SEQUENCE OWNED BY without a relfilenode bump. PFA > two versions of a patch that fixes this problem, at least to the > extent that it gets through check-world without triggering the Assert > I

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication: \dRp+ and "for all tables"

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Janes writes: >> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Masahiko Sawada >> wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: That seems unfortunate. Should the "for all tables" be included as another column in \dRp and \d

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 Partitioned tables and relation_is_updatable()

On 06/12/2017 07:40 AM, Joe Conway wrote: > On 06/12/2017 01:49 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Dean Rasheed >>> wrote: It looks like relation_is_updatable() didn't get the message about partitioned tables. Thus, for example, information_schema.views and >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Why restore_command is called for existing files in pg_xlog?

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 5:25 AM, Alex Kliukin wrote: > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017, at 11:51 AM, Alexander Kukushkin wrote: > > Hello hackers, > There is one strange and awful thing I don't understand about > restore_command: it is always being called for every single WAL segment > postgres wants to appl

Re: [HACKERS] Disallowing multiple queries per PQexec()

Tom Lane wrote: > Bearing in mind that I'm not really for this at all... It's a band-aid, but certainly there are cases where a DBA confronted to a badly written website would just want to be able to: ALTER USER webuser SET allow_multiple_queries TO off; > But if an attacker is able to

[HACKERS] standby server crashes hard on out-of-disk-space in HEAD

logfile from a standby server: 2017-06-12 11:43:46.450 EDT [13605] LOG: started streaming WAL from primary at 3/E600 on timeline 1 2017-06-12 11:47:46.992 EDT [11261] FATAL: could not extend file "base/47578/54806": No space left on device 2017-06-12 11:47:46.992 EDT [11261] HINT: Check f

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication NOTICE "synchronized table states"

On 6/9/17 19:17, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/9/17 17:06, Jeff Janes wrote: >> When creating a subscription, I get a NOTICE "synchronized table states" >> >> What is this supposed to be telling the end user? Is this just a >> debugging message not intended to be included in the released code? >

Re: [HACKERS] Broken hint bits (freeze)

> 12 июня 2017 г., в 13:19, Amit Kapila написал(а): > > On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Vladimir Borodin > wrote: >> >> 8 июня 2017 г., в 17:03, Amit Kapila написал(а): >> >> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Dmitriy Sarafannikov >> wrote: >> >> >> Why didn't rsyn

[HACKERS] v10beta pg_catalog diagrams

Hi, I'm cross posting from general. I did some work to diagram the relationships in pg_catalog for v10. I would like to add it to the developer FAQ here https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ#Is_there_a_diagram_of_the_system_catalogs_available.3F but I thought I should check if people

Re: [HACKERS] pgrowlocks relkind check

On 4/24/17 21:22, Amit Langote wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On 2017/04/11 22:17, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> create extension pgrowlocks; >>> create view one as select 1; >>> select pgrowlocks('one'); >>> -- ERROR: could not open file "base/68730/68748": No such file or directory >>> >>> With the attach

Re: [HACKERS] ICU support on Windows

On 6/10/17 05:40, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > With the help of attached patch, we can use icu feature on Windows. > All we have to do is, download the ICU libraries from - [1] and add > the installation path for icu libraires in config.pl like, > > icu => 'E:\Users\pg\icu', > > [1]- http://site.icu-

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 Partitioned tables and relation_is_updatable()

On 06/12/2017 01:49 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Dean Rasheed >> wrote: >>> It looks like relation_is_updatable() didn't get the message about >>> partitioned tables. Thus, for example, information_schema.views and >>> information_schema.columns report that simple v

Re: [HACKERS] Disallowing multiple queries per PQexec()

"Daniel Verite" writes: > PGC_POSTMASTER implies that it's an instance-wide setting. > Is is intentional? I can understand that it's more secure for this not to > be changeable in an existing session, but it's also much less usable if you > can't set it per-database and per-user. > Maybe it should

Re: [HACKERS] Disallowing multiple queries per PQexec()

Surafel Temesgen wrote: > I modified the patch as such and added to commitfest 2017-07. A couple comments: + {"disallow_multiple_queries", PGC_POSTMASTER, CLIENT_CONN_OTHER, + gettext_noop("Disallow multiple queries per query string."), +

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 6:31 AM, Mithun Cy wrote: > Thanks, Amit, > + /* Perform autoprewarm's task. */ + if (todo_task == TASK_PREWARM_BUFFERPOOL && + !state->skip_prewarm_on_restart) Why have you removed above comment in the new patch? I am not pointing this because above comment is meaningfu

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is coming for table which is already removed

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/11/17 21:40, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> Thank you for the patch. The patch fixes this issue but it takes a >> long time to done ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET PUBLICATION when >> max_sync_workers_per_subscription is set high value. Because the

Re: [HACKERS] remove unnecessary flag has_null from PartitionBoundInfoData

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 3:50 PM, amul sul wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > [...] >> I committed this with fixes for those issues, plus I renamed the macro >> to partition_bound_accepts_nulls, which I think is more clear. >> > partition_bound_accepts_nulls() will alw

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is coming for table which is already removed

On 6/11/17 21:40, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Thank you for the patch. The patch fixes this issue but it takes a > long time to done ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET PUBLICATION when > max_sync_workers_per_subscription is set high value. Because the > removing entry from pg_subscription_rel and launching a new

Re: [HACKERS] Why restore_command is called for existing files in pg_xlog?

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017, at 11:51 AM, Alexander Kukushkin wrote: > Hello hackers, > There is one strange and awful thing I don't understand about > restore_command: it is always being called for every single WAL > segment postgres wants to apply (even if such segment already exists > in pg_xlog) until

Re: [HACKERS] oidin / oidout and InvalidOid

On 06/12/2017 01:41 PM, Chapman Flack wrote: I was recently guilty of writing a less-than-clear SQL example because I plain forgot whether InvalidOid was 0 (correct) or -1 (my bad). Would there be any sense in letting oidin_subr accept the string InvalidOid for 0? I understand that changing oido

[HACKERS] Dropping partitioned table drops a previously detached partition

Hi, If we detach a partition and drop the corresponding partitioned table, it drops the once-partition now-standalone table as well. create table prt1 (a int, b int) partition by range(a); create table prt1_p1 partition of prt1 for values from (0) to (100); select oid, relname, relpartbound, relis

[HACKERS] oidin / oidout and InvalidOid

Hi, I was recently guilty of writing a less-than-clear SQL example because I plain forgot whether InvalidOid was 0 (correct) or -1 (my bad). Would there be any sense in letting oidin_subr accept the string InvalidOid for 0? I understand that changing oidout could break existing code outside of th

Re: [HACKERS] Statement-level rollback

On 1 March 2017 at 16:05, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> On 2/28/17 08:17, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I do not really see how this would ever get past the compatibility >>> problems that forced us to give up on server-side autocommit years ago. > >> I think it's different because it's not

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

Thank you for your comments Peter, there are some points that I did not think about before.On 9 Jun 2017, at 01:09, Peter Geoghegan wrote:Adding a full support of ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING/UPDATE to COPY seemsto be a large separated task and is out of the current project scope, butmaybe

Re: [HACKERS] remove unnecessary flag has_null from PartitionBoundInfoData

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote: [...] > I committed this with fixes for those issues, plus I renamed the macro > to partition_bound_accepts_nulls, which I think is more clear. > partition_bound_accepts_nulls() will alway yield true for a range partitioning case, because in Rel

Re: [HACKERS] Broken hint bits (freeze)

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Vladimir Borodin wrote: > > 8 июня 2017 г., в 17:03, Amit Kapila написал(а): > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Dmitriy Sarafannikov > wrote: > > > Why didn't rsync made the copies on master and replica same? > > > Because rsync was running with —size-only flag

Re: [HACKERS] Statement-level rollback

Hello, This feature hasn't been updated for a long time, but I've just been interested in this feature and looking into the mailing list. From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us] > In short, you can't make fundamental changes in transactional behavior without > enormous breakage.

Re: [HACKERS] ICU support on Windows

Hi, On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Ashutosh Sharma > wrote: >> Currently, we cannot perform ICU enabled build for postgres on Windows >> platform. However, this can be done on Linux platforms using >> '--with-icu' configuration parame

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 Partitioned tables and relation_is_updatable()

> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Dean Rasheed > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> It looks like relation_is_updatable() didn't get the message about >> partitioned tables. Thus, for example, information_schema.views and >> information_schema.columns report that simple views built on top of >> partitioned tab

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 Partitioned tables and relation_is_updatable()

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote: > Hi, > > It looks like relation_is_updatable() didn't get the message about > partitioned tables. Thus, for example, information_schema.views and > information_schema.columns report that simple views built on top of > partitioned tables are non

Re: [HACKERS] A bug in mapping attributes in ATExecAttachPartition()

On 2017/06/09 20:49, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > May be we should pass a flag to predicate_implied_by() to handle NULL > behaviour for CHECK constraints. Partitioning has shown that it needs > to use predicate_implied_by() for comparing constraints and there may > be other cases that can come up in fut

Re: [HACKERS] A bug in mapping attributes in ATExecAttachPartition()

On 2017/06/09 20:47, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Thanks for the long explanation. I guess, this should be written in > comments somewhere in the code there. I see following comment in > ATExecAttachPartition() > -- > * > * There is a case in which we cannot rely on just the result of the >