Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: > If I have a slow function which is evaluated in a simple seq scan, I do not > get parallel execution, even though it would be massively useful. Unless > force_parallel_mode=ON, then I get a dummy parallel plan with one

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: > > Actually, if \d had shown RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE tables as of Type > > "partitioned table", we wouldn't need a separate flag for marking a table > > as having partitions. > > I

[HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions

If I have a slow function which is evaluated in a simple seq scan, I do not get parallel execution, even though it would be massively useful. Unless force_parallel_mode=ON, then I get a dummy parallel plan with one worker. explain select aid,slow(abalance) from pgbench_accounts; CREATE OR

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql 10: hash indexes testing

Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:51 AM, AP wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 05:58:25PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> I can understand your concerns. To address first concern we need to > >> work on one or more of following work items: (a) work on vacuums that >

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql 10: hash indexes testing

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:51 AM, AP wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 05:58:25PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:22 AM, AP wrote: >> > On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 05:19:59PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> I think if you are under development,

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

On 2017/07/11 10:34, Paul A Jungwirth wrote: >> Also, there seems to be at least some preference >> for excluding partitions by default from the \d listing. > > As another user of partitions I'll chime in and say that would be very > nice! On the other hand, with pre-10 partitions you do see all

Re: [HACKERS] strcmp() tie-breaker for identical ICU-collated strings

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Isn't that what strxfrm() is? > > Yeah, just with bugs. If ICU has a non-buggy equivalent, then we can > make this work. I agree that it probably isn't worth using strxfrm() again, simply because the glibc

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

> Also, there seems to be at least some preference > for excluding partitions by default from the \d listing. As another user of partitions I'll chime in and say that would be very nice! On the other hand, with pre-10 partitions you do see all the child tables with `\d`, so showing declarative

Re: [HACKERS] hash index on unlogged tables doesn't behave as expected

At Mon, 10 Jul 2017 18:37:34 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

On 2017/07/11 7:33, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> Actually, if \d had shown RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE tables as of Type >> "partitioned table", we wouldn't need a separate flag for marking a table >> as having

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> So I would suggest the following

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow multiple hostaddrs to go with multiple hostnames.

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 07/10/2017 01:27 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> >> This commit seems be cause of the documentation compilation error. I >> think is missing. >> >> ... >> >> Attached small patch fixes this. > > > Thanks, committed!

Re: [HACKERS] More race conditions in logical replication

Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I'll next update this on or before Monday 10th at 19:00 CLT. I couldn't get to this today as I wanted. Next update on Wednesday 12th, same time. -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training &

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Key normalization for nbtree

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Greg Stark wrote: > One thing I would like to see is features like this added to the > opclasses (or opfamilies?) using standard PG functions that return > standard PG data types. So if each opclass had a function that took > the data type in

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

On 10 July 2017 at 23:46, David Fetter wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 05:33:34PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote >> wrote: >> > I posted a patch upthread which makes \d hide partitions >> >

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Key normalization for nbtree

On 10 July 2017 at 19:40, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Key normalization means creating a representation for internal page > items that we always just memcmp(), regardless of the details of the > underlying datatypes. One thing I would like to see is features like this added to the

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 05:33:34PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: > > I posted a patch upthread which makes \d hide partitions > > (relispartition = true relations) and include them if the newly > > proposed '!'

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > I posted a patch upthread which makes \d hide partitions (relispartition = > true relations) and include them if the newly proposed '!' modifier is > specified. The '+' modifier is being used to show additional

Re: [HACKERS] Add support for tuple routing to foreign partitions

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > So, I dropped the COPY part. Ouch. I think we should try to figure out how the COPY part will be handled before we commit to a design. I have to admit that I'm a little bit fuzzy about why foreign insert

[HACKERS] Re: Oddity in error handling of constraint violation in ExecConstraints for partitioned tables

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 3:06 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 06:47:26PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: >> On 2017/07/06 16:06, Etsuro Fujita wrote: >> > Looks odd to me because the error message doesn't show any DETAIL info; >> > since the CTE query, which produces

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Key normalization for nbtree

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: > I do have a patch that attacks suffix truncation, heap tid unification > and prefix compression all at once. That's great! I'll certainly be able to review it. > It's on a hiatus ATM, but, as you say, the

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Key normalization for nbtree

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Claudio Freire wrote: > >> A missing optimization is that having tid unification allows VACUUM to >> implement a different strategy when it needs to clean up only a tiny >> fraction of the index. It can do the

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Key normalization for nbtree

Claudio Freire wrote: > A missing optimization is that having tid unification allows VACUUM to > implement a different strategy when it needs to clean up only a tiny > fraction of the index. It can do the lookup by key-tid instead of > scanning the whole index, which can be a win if the index is

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Key normalization for nbtree

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > It might appear excessive to talk about several different techniques > in one place, but that seemed like the best way to me, because there > are subtle dependencies. If most of the optimizations are pursued as a > project

[HACKERS] RFC: Key normalization for nbtree

I've created a new Wiki page that describes a scheme for normalizing internal page items within B-Tree indexes, and the many optimizations that this can enable: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Key_normalization Key normalization means creating a representation for internal page items that we

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 04:15:28PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/07/10 15:32, Craig Ringer wrote: > > On 8 July 2017 at 00:03, David Fetter wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 10:29:26AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > >>> Hi Mark, > >>> > >>> On 2017/07/07 9:02, Mark

Re: [HACKERS] retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

Noah Misch writes: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:46:09AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Shall we go for broke and also remove the ASLR-disabling patch in beta2? > As I mentioned in my message eight hours ago, no. Ah, sorry, I'd managed to swap out that bit of info already.

[HACKERS] Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:46:09AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: > > On Jul 10, 2017 16:08, "Tom Lane" wrote: > >> Okay, so that leaves us with a decision to make: push it into beta2, or > >> wait till after wrap? I find it pretty

[HACKERS] Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:08:53AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch writes: > > I recommend pushing your patch so the August back-branch releases have it. > > One can see by inspection that your patch has negligible effect on systems > > healthy today. I have a reasonable

Re: [HACKERS] retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

Magnus Hagander writes: > On Jul 10, 2017 16:08, "Tom Lane" wrote: >> Okay, so that leaves us with a decision to make: push it into beta2, or >> wait till after wrap? I find it pretty scary to push a patch with >> portability implications so soon before

[HACKERS] Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Jul 10, 2017 16:08, "Tom Lane" wrote: Noah Misch writes: > On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 09:56:33AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Yeah, being able to reproduce the problem reliably enough to say whether >> it's fixed or not is definitely the sticking point here.

Re: [HACKERS] retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

Noah Misch writes: > On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 09:56:33AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Yeah, being able to reproduce the problem reliably enough to say whether >> it's fixed or not is definitely the sticking point here. I have some >> ideas about that: ... > I tried this procedure

Re: [HACKERS] WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors

Hello everyone! There's the second version of my patch for pgbench. Now transactions with serialization and deadlock failures are rolled back and retried until they end successfully or their number of attempts reaches maximum. In details: - You can set the maximum number of attempts by the

Re: [HACKERS] hash index on unlogged tables doesn't behave as expected

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Hi, > > At Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:58:13 +0530, Amit Kapila > wrote in

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow multiple hostaddrs to go with multiple hostnames.

On 07/10/2017 01:27 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: This commit seems be cause of the documentation compilation error. I think is missing. ... Attached small patch fixes this. Thanks, committed! Strangely, it worked on my system, despite that clear mistake. Looks like the 'osx' tool is more

Re: [HACKERS] Dumping database creation options and ACLs

On 07/03/2017 05:16 PM, Rafael Martinez wrote: > We have a discussion about this some time ago and we created a wiki page > where we tried to write down some ideas/proposals and links to threads > discussing the subject: > > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Pg_dump_improvements Thanks for this

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

On 07/10/2017 01:47 PM, Arthur Zakirov wrote: Hello, 2017-07-10 12:30 GMT+03:00 Heikki Linnakangas : I just remembered that this was still pending. I made the documentation changes, and committed this patch now. We're uncomfortably close to wrapping the next beta, later

[HACKERS] Double shared memory allocation for SLRU LWLocks

Hi, all! It seems to me that we're allocating shared memory for SLRU lwlocks twice, unless I'm missing something. SimpleLruShmemSize() calculates total SLRU shared memory size including lwlocks size. SimpleLruInit() starts with line shared = (SlruShared) ShmemInitStruct(name,

Re: [HACKERS] paths in partitions of a dummy partitioned table

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Hello, Thanks for the review. >> If a partitioned table is proven dummy, set_rel_pathlist() doesn't mark the >> partition relations dummy and thus doesn't set any (dummy) paths in the >> partition

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Zipfian distribution in pgbench

Hello Alik, Your description is not very precise. What version of Postgres is used? If there is a decline, compared to which version? Is there a link to these results? Benchmark have been done in master v10. I am attaching image with results: . Ok, thanks. More precision would be

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

Hello, 2017-07-10 12:30 GMT+03:00 Heikki Linnakangas : > > > I just remembered that this was still pending. I made the documentation > changes, and committed this patch now. > > We're uncomfortably close to wrapping the next beta, later today, but I > think it's better to get

Re: [HACKERS] COPY vs. transition tables

> "Andrew" == Andrew Gierth writes: > "Thomas" == Thomas Munro writes: Thomas> Here it is. Added to open items. Andrew> On it. Committed. -- Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow multiple hostaddrs to go with multiple hostnames.

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Allow multiple hostaddrs to go with multiple hostnames. > > Also fix two other issues, while we're at it: > > * In error message on connection failure, if multiple network addresses > were given as the host

Re: [HACKERS] COPY vs. transition tables

> "Thomas" == Thomas Munro writes: Thomas> Here it is. Added to open items. On it. -- Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] hash index on unlogged tables doesn't behave as expected

Hi, At Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:58:13 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] POC: Sharing record typmods between backends

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On May 31, 2017 11:28:18 AM PDT, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On 2017-05-31 13:27:28 -0400, Dilip Kumar wrote: [ ... various discussion in support of using DHT ... ] Ok, good. Here's a new version that

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

On 06/09/2017 04:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Right. I think it's a usability fail as it is; it certainly fooled me. We could make the error messages and documentation more clear. But even better to allow multiple host

Re: [HACKERS] paths in partitions of a dummy partitioned table

Hello, At Thu, 6 Jul 2017 21:05:21 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote in > If a partitioned table is proven dummy, set_rel_pathlist() doesn't mark the > partition relations dummy and thus doesn't set

Re: [HACKERS] hash index on unlogged tables doesn't behave as expected

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > At Sat, 8 Jul 2017 16:41:27 +0530, Amit Kapila > wrote in >> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Robert Haas

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Zipfian distribution in pgbench

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Alik Khilazhev wrote: > Hello, Fabien! > > Your description is not very precise. What version of Postgres is used? If > there is a decline, compared to which version? Is there a link to these > results? > > > Benchmark have been done

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

On 2017/07/10 15:32, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 8 July 2017 at 00:03, David Fetter wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 10:29:26AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: >>> Hi Mark, >>> >>> On 2017/07/07 9:02, Mark Kirkwood wrote: I've been trying out the new partitioning in version 10.

[HACKERS] Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > I recommend pushing your patch so the August back-branch releases have it. > One can see by inspection that your patch has negligible effect on systems > healthy today. I have a reasonable suspicion it will help some

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Zipfian distribution in pgbench

Hello, Fabien! > Your description is not very precise. What version of Postgres is used? If > there is a decline, compared to which version? Is there a link to these > results? Benchmark have been done in master v10. I am attaching image with results: . > Indeed, the function computation is

[HACKERS] Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 09:56:33AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Kapila writes: > > Sure. I think it is slightly tricky because specs don't say clearly > > how ASLR can impact the behavior of any API and in my last attempt I > > could not reproduce the issue. > > > I

Re: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback

On 8 July 2017 at 00:03, David Fetter wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 10:29:26AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > > > On 2017/07/07 9:02, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > > > I've been trying out the new partitioning in version 10. Firstly, I > must > > > say this is

Re: [HACKERS] Oddity in error handling of constraint violation in ExecConstraints for partitioned tables

Fujita-san, On 2017/07/10 14:15, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > On 2017/07/07 18:47, Amit Langote wrote: >> On 2017/07/06 16:06, Etsuro Fujita wrote: >>> I think this should be fixed. Attached is a patch for that. > >> How about setting ri_RangeTableIndex of the partition ResultRelInfo >> correctly in