Hello,
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Beena Emerson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>>
>> At this point, I suggest splitting this patch up into several
>> potentially less controversial pieces.
>>
>> One big piece is that we currently don't sup
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Mithun Cy wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Mithun Cy
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Mithun Cy
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>
> Also,
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Mithun Cy wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> Few comments on the latest patch:
>>
>> 1.
>> + LWLockRelease(&apw_state->lock);
>> + if (!is_bgworker)
>> + ereport(ERROR,
>> + (errmsg("could not perform block dump because dump file is b
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:40 AM, AP wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 05:52:32PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> >> > version | bucket_pages | overflow_pages | bitmap_pages | unused_pages
>> >> > | live_items | dead_items | free_percent
>> >> > -+--++
On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 09:12:01AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> While discussing the behavior of hash indexes with Bruce in the nearby
> thread [1], it has been noticed that hash index on unlogged tables
> doesn't behave as expected. Prior to 10, it has the different set of
> problems (mainly becau
Hi Dean,
On 2017/07/05 23:18, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 5 July 2017 at 10:43, Amit Langote wrote:
>> In retrospect, that sounds like something that was implemented in the
>> earlier versions of the patch, whereby there was no ability to specify
>> UNBOUNDED on a per-column basis. So the syntax wa
To make the queries fired by the RI triggers GIN indexed. We need to ‒ as
Tom Lane has previously suggested[1] ‒ to replace the query
SELECT 1 FROM ONLY fktable x WHERE $1 = ANY (fkcol) FOR SHARE OF x;
with
SELECT 1 FROM ONLY fktable x WHERE ARRAY[$1] <@ fkcol FOR SHARE OF x;
but since we have
Michael,
> Couldn't you cache one single SASL exchange status for each
> connection, meaning one PGconn saved for each? As the challenge sent
> by the server and the response generated by the client are different
> by design, I am afraid you would need to do that anyway in this
> context (Isn't PG
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> For Pgpool-II, things would go as follows:
>
> 1) clients sends user name to Pgpool-II.
> 2) Pgpool-II forwards it to PostgreSQL servers.
> 3) Each PostgreSQL server sends their own salt to Pgpool-II.
> 4) Pgpool-II is confused because there a
Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Teodor Sigaev wrote:
> >
> >> Playing around freezing tuple I found suspicious piece of code:
> >>
> >> heap_prepare_freeze_tuple():
> >> ...
> >> frz->t_infomask = tuple->t_infomask;
> >> ...
> >> fr
Hi PostgreSQL hackers,
I would like to hear ideas how Pgpool-II can deal with SCRAM auth
which will be in PostgreSQL 10.
For those who are not familiar with Pgpool-II[1], it is an external
OSS project to provide some additional features to PostgreSQL,
including load balancing and automatic failov
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>
>> Playing around freezing tuple I found suspicious piece of code:
>>
>> heap_prepare_freeze_tuple():
>> ...
>> frz->t_infomask = tuple->t_infomask;
>> ...
>> frz->t_infomask &= ~HEAP_XMAX_BITS;
>>
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:41 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 7/2/17 20:28, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> I was going to hold this back for PG11, but since we're now doing some
>>> other tweaks in pg_ctl, it might be useful to add this too. Thoughts?
>>
>> The use of 0 as exit code for the new promot
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Ryan Murphy wrote:
> I tried to apply your patch to HEAD and it failed.
> But I think that's because some version of it has already been committed,
> correct? I see some of your ECONNRESET and "SSL connection has been closed
> unexpectedly" code already in HEAD.
I wrote:
> (Pokes at it some more...) Oh, interesting: it behaves that way except
> when p is exactly the lowest histogram entry.
Here's a revised version that addresses that point and cleans up some
other minor details about treatment of cases near the histogram endpoints.
I'm still pretty unclea
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 05:52:32PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> > version | bucket_pages | overflow_pages | bitmap_pages | unused_pages |
> >> > live_items | dead_items | free_percent
> >> > -+--++--+--+++
On 7/2/17 20:28, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I was going to hold this back for PG11, but since we're now doing some
>> other tweaks in pg_ctl, it might be useful to add this too. Thoughts?
>
> The use of 0 as exit code for the new promote -w if timeout is reached
> looks like an open item to me. Cl
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.
I volunteer to own this item. My next update is going to be on or
before Friday 7th at 19:00 Chilean time, though I
On 5 July 2017 at 10:43, Amit Langote wrote:
> In retrospect, that sounds like something that was implemented in the
> earlier versions of the patch, whereby there was no ability to specify
> UNBOUNDED on a per-column basis. So the syntax was:
>
> FROM { (x [, ...]) | UNBOUNDED } TO { (y [, ...])
Teodor Sigaev wrote:
> Playing around freezing tuple I found suspicious piece of code:
>
> heap_prepare_freeze_tuple():
> ...
> frz->t_infomask = tuple->t_infomask;
> ...
> frz->t_infomask &= ~HEAP_XMAX_BITS;
> frz->xmax = newxmax;
> if (flags & FRM_MARK_COMMIT
Hi!
Playing around freezing tuple I found suspicious piece of code:
heap_prepare_freeze_tuple():
...
frz->t_infomask = tuple->t_infomask;
...
frz->t_infomask &= ~HEAP_XMAX_BITS;
frz->xmax = newxmax;
if (flags & FRM_MARK_COMMITTED)
frz->t_infoma
On 2017/07/05 15:28, Michael Paquier wrote:
I have finally been able to look at this patch.
Thanks for reviewing and the new version of the patch.
(Surprised to see that generate_unaccent_rules.py is inconsistent on
MacOS, runs fine on Linux).
def get_plain_letter(codepoint, table):
"
Hi Michael,
I tried to apply your patch to HEAD and it failed. But I think that's because
some version of it has already been committed, correct? I see some of your
ECONNRESET and "SSL connection has been closed unexpectedly" code already in
HEAD.
Best,
Ryan
The new status of this patch is:
On 6/21/17 23:40, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> On 6/18/17 10:14, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Doesn't cope with backslash-quoted characters. If we're going to bother
>>> to do anything here, I think we ought to make it reversible for all
>>> possible characters.
>
>> Makes sense. Update
On 5 July 2017 at 10:43, Amit Langote wrote:
>> So the more I think about this, the more I think that a cleaner design
>> would be as follows:
>>
>> 1). Don't allow UNBOUNDED, except in the first column, where it can
>> keep it's current meaning.
>>
>> 2). Allow the partition bounds to have fe
> On Jul 5, 2017, at 5:30 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 3, 2017, at 10:25 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 30 June 2017 at 05:14, Amit Kapila wrote:
> This is ex
On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 08:23:20PM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:57 AM, AP wrote:
> > The data being indexed is BYTEA, (quasi)random and 64 bytes in size.
> > The table has over 2 billion entries. The data is not unique. There's
> > an average of 10 duplicates for every uniqu
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 03:33:45PM +1000, AP wrote:
> > Do you have any deletes? How have you verified whether autovacuum has
>
> No DELETEs. Just the initial COPY, then SELECTs, then a DB rename to get it
> out of the way of other testing, then the REINDEX.
>
> > been triggered or not?
>
> I j
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 10:29:09AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> bitmappages. Can you try to use pgstattuple extension and get us the
> >> results of Select * from pgstathashindex('index_name');? If the
> >> number of bitmappages is 128 and total overflow pages are 128 * 4096,
> >> then that wou
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Few comments on the latest patch:
>
> 1.
> + LWLockRelease(&apw_state->lock);
> + if (!is_bgworker)
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + (errmsg("could not perform block dump because dump file is being
> used by PID %d",
> + apw_state->pid_using_dumpfile)))
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Mithun Cy wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Mithun Cy
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
Also, I find it a bit messy that launch_autoprewarm_dump() doesn't
>
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Mithun Cy
>> wrote:
>>
>> * Instead of creating our own buffering system via buffer_file_write()
>> and buffer_file_flush(), why not just use the facilit
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Today while exploring a bit on Range table partitioning, I could see
>> that even if scan is performed on a single partition, the plan node
>> has Append node in it
On 3 Jul. 2017 23:01, "K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore)" <
sandhya@nokia.com> wrote:
Hi Craig,
Thanks for the response.
Scenario tried here is restart of the system multiple times. sh-QUIT core
is generated when Postgres is invoking the shell to exit and may not be due
to kernel or file s
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:39 PM, amul sul wrote:
>> Thanks to catching this, fixed in the attached version.
>
> Few comments on the latest version.
>
Thanks for your review, please find my comment inline:
> 0001 looks fine, for 0002 I have som
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
>> On Jul 3, 2017, at 10:25 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On 30 June 2017 at 05:14, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>
This is explained in section 15.2 [1], refer below para:
"The query mig
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:03 AM, AP wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 10:29:09AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> >> bitmappages. Can you try to use pgstattuple extension and get us the
>> >> results of Select * from pgstathashindex('index_name');? If the
>> >> number of bitmappages is 128 and total
On 30 June 2017 at 15:10, Rafia Sabih wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Amit Khandekar
> wrote:
>>
>> Attached is an updated patch v13 that has some comments changed as per
>> your review, and also rebased on latest master.
>
>
> This is not applicable on the latest head i.e. commit --
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:39 PM, amul sul wrote:
> Thanks to catching this, fixed in the attached version.
Few comments on the latest version.
0001 looks fine, for 0002 I have some comments.
1.
+ hbounds = (PartitionHashBound * *) palloc(nparts *
+ sizeof(PartitionHashBound *));
/s/(PartitionH
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Today while exploring a bit on Range table partitioning, I could see
> that even if scan is performed on a single partition, the plan node
> has Append node in it. Isn't it a bug?
No. See following comment from create_append_pla
Hi All,
Today while exploring a bit on Range table partitioning, I could see
that even if scan is performed on a single partition, the plan node
has Append node in it. Isn't it a bug?
As per the usage of Append Node, it should only be seen in the
queryplan when scan is performed on multiple table
Hi Dean,
On 2017/07/04 16:49, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 3 July 2017 at 10:32, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2017/07/03 17:36, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>>> The bigger question is do we want this for PG10? If so, time is
>>> getting tight. My feeling is that we do, because otherwise we'd be
>>> changing the
On 4 July 2017 at 15:23, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> On 4 July 2017 at 14:48, Amit Khandekar wrote:
>> On 4 July 2017 at 14:38, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> On 2017/07/04 17:25, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On 2017/07/03 18:54, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/07/02 20:10, Robert Haas wrote:
>> That
>>
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I feel that since we cannot switch the WAL forcibly on the standby
> server we need to find a new way to do so. I'm not sure but it might
> be a hard work and be late for PG10. Or you meant that you have a idea
> for this?
Why not refactor
44 matches
Mail list logo
