Re: [HACKERS] Function to move the position of a replication slot

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > PFA an updated and rebased patch. > > Rebased. Now named pg_advance_replication_slot. ERROR on logical slots. > Forward only. > > I think that, in the end, covered all the comments? + if (backwards) +

Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] Savepoint-related statements terminates connection

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I don't want to go there, and was thinking we should expand the new > comment in DefineSavepoint to explain why not. Okay. > It's certainly not that > much additional work to allow a savepoint so far as xact.c is concerned,

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > I've made this change in v14 of the main patch. > > In case others had opinions regarding the de-duplication patch, I've > attached that again as well. + /* +* Create the relation list in a long-lived memory

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_rewind to skip config files

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > A simple idea would be to pass as a parameter a regex on which we > check files to skip when scanning the directory of the target remotely > or locally. This needs to be used with care though, i

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_rewind to skip config files

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Chris Travers wrote: > In some experiments with pg_rewind and rep mgr I noticed that local testing > is complicated by the fact that pg_rewind appears to copy configuration > files from the source to target directory. > > I would propose

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > I've not read through the thread, but this seems like the wrong approach > to me. The receiving side should use a correct value, instead of putting > this complexity on the sender's side. Yes I agree with that. The

Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Tatsuro Yamada wrote: > Then I have questions. > > * Should we have separate views for them? Or should both be covered by the > same view with some indication of which command (CLUSTER or VACUUM FULL) > is actually

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Assert that the correct locks are held when calling PageGetLSN()

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 3:53 AM, Jacob Champion wrote: > The patch is really two pieces: add the assertion, and fix the callers > that would trip it. The latter part is still in progress, because I'm > running into some places where I'm not sure what the correct way > forward

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup throttling doesn't throttle as promised

On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 6:42 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: > I'm attaching a patch for each option. Each one independently solves the > problem. But I think we should do both. There is no point in issuing > unnecessary kill system calls, and there may also be more spurious

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 3:00 AM, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > Don't we have a similar problem with makeVacuumRelation() and list_make1()? Yeah, indeed. I forgot about this portion. > I went ahead and moved the RangeVar, VacuumRelation, and List into local > variables for now,

Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] Savepoint-related statements terminates connection

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > On further consideration, I think the control logic I added in > exec_simple_query() is a shade bogus. I set it up to only force > an implicit transaction block when there are at least two statements > remaining to

Re: [HACKERS] Crash on promotion when recovery.conf is renamed

2, I have updated the messages as well to be more in-line with what is in HEAD for corrupted entries. -- Michael From 2f3a16c0c0cb12f8bfef2d58656352c46a681393 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 21:15:04 +0900 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Minimize wi

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Add --no-comments to skip COMMENTs with pg_dump

On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> Thinking ahead, are we going to add a new --no-objecttype switch every >> time someone wants it? > > I'd personally be fine with --no-whatever

Re: [HACKERS] Function to move the position of a replication slot

On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> On 8/31/17 08:19, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> I think that, in the end, covered all the comments? > >> I didn't see any explanation of what this would actually be

Re: [HACKERS] More replication race conditions

On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Michael Paquier >> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Today's run has finished with the same failure: >>

Re: [HACKERS] Rename RECOVERYXLOG to RECOVERYWAL?

On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 3:06 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I don't think this really buys us anything. If we'd applied it to v10 > maybe, but what do we get out of whacking it around now? > > "Consistency", I hear you cry! Fair point. But we never had a goal > of eliminating

Re: [HACKERS] Upcoming commit fest will begin soon

On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2017-09-01 16:14:25 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> > On 01 Sep 2017, at 05:33, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > Another q

Re: [HACKERS] Adding -E switch to pg_dumpall

On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: >>> Ok

Re: [HACKERS] Upcoming commit fest will begin soon

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Another question is: who would like to become the CF manager for this > time? This commit fest is very large, so it is going to be difficult > for one person to do the whole thing, hence at least

Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] Savepoint-related statements terminates connection

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > I'm not sure I see the use case for anyone using SAVEPOINTs in this > context, so simply throwing a good error message is enough. > > Clearly nobody is using this, so lets just lock the door. I don't > think fiddling with

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > On 8/31/17, 2:24 AM, "Masahiko Sawada" wrote: >> I reviewed these patches and found a issue. > > Thanks for reviewing. > >> autovacuum worker seems not to work fine. I got an error message; >>

Re: [HACKERS] adding the commit to a patch's thread

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote: > Would it be possible to change the commitfest a bit and make it possible to > add the commit (or commit-message, or hash) to the thread in the > commitfest-app. I would think it would be best to make it so that when the >

Re: [HACKERS] Creating backup history files for backups taken from standbys

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> >> wrote: &g

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench tap tests & minor fixes.

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > I am about to set "Ready for commit" status to this patch. So there is my > summary for commiter, so one does not need to carefully read all the thread. > > This patch is consists of three parts. May be they should be

[HACKERS] Upcoming commit fest will begin soon

Hi all, At the moment of this email, it is 15:25 AOE, so you still have close to 8 hours to register patches for the upcoming the commit fest: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/ This commit fest is large, as expected from any first commit fest for a new development cycle, with still close to

Re: bgw_type (was Re: [HACKERS] Why does logical replication launcher set application_name?)

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 4:49 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 5/30/17 23:10, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Here is a proposed solution that splits bgw_name into bgw_type and >> bgw_name_extra. bgw_type shows up in pg_stat_activity.backend_type. >> Uses of

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:11 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > On 8/31/17 4:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Michael Paquier >> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Thanks for the new version. This looks fine to

Re: [HACKERS] Hooks to track changed pages for backup purposes

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Andrey Borodin wrote: > Here is the patch with hooks that I consider sufficient for implementation of > incremental backup with pages tracking as extension. > > Recently I was posting these things to the thread "Adding hook in BufferSync >

Re: [HACKERS] multiple target of VACUUM command

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > I sometimes feel annoyed when trying to VACUUM multiple specific > tables. > > postgres=# vacuum a, b; > ERROR: syntax error at or near "," > LINE 1: vacuum a, b; > > This patch just allows multiple

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:02 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > On 8/29/17 9:44 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:59 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >>> >>> Attached is the 9.6 patch. It required

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 8:35 AM, David G. Johnston wrote: > Inspired by the syntax documentation for EXPLAIN: > > VACUUM [ ( option [, ...] ) ] [ table_def [, ...] ] > > where option can be one of: > FULL > FREEZE > VERBOSE > DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING > >

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pg_rewind: Fix some problems when copying files >2GB.

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: >> So, perhaps it would be better to fix that before the next point release? > > Sure, I'll get it done on Friday, or tomorrow if I can manage it. Thanks, Álvaro. -- M

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Bossart, Nathan <bossa...@amazon.com> wrote: > On 8/28/17, 11:26 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> About the de-duplication patch, I have to admit that I am still not a >> fan of doing such a t

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pg_rewind: Fix some problems when copying files >2GB.

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: >> I don't like breaking the abstraction of pg_log() with the existing >> flags with some kind of pg_debug() layer. The set of APIs present now

Re: [HACKERS] segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/29/17 20:36, Andres Freund wrote: >> So the question is whether we want {max,min}_wal_size be sized in >> multiples of segment sizes or as a proper byte size. I'm leaning >> towards the latter. > >

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:59 PM, David Steele wrote: > Hi Robert, > > On 8/25/17 4:03 PM, David Steele wrote: >> On 8/25/17 3:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:21 PM, David Steele >>> wrote: No problem. I'll base it on your

Re: [HACKERS] segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2017-08-30 09:49:14 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Do you think that we should worry about wal segment sizes higher than >> 2GB? Support for int64 GUCs is not here yet. > > 1GB will

Re: [HACKERS] segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > So the question is whether we want {max,min}_wal_size be sized in > multiples of segment sizes or as a proper byte size. I'm leaning > towards the latter. Logically in the code it is just a matter of adjusting

Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:34 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > It'd be nice to replace both with fls() or flsl(), though it's > annoying to have to think about long vs int64 etc. We already use > fls() in two places and supply an implementation in src/port/fls.c for >

[HACKERS] Improve history file reasons when doing promotion

Hi all, When triggering a promotion, the history file generated for the timeline bump provides a reason behind the timeline bump not really helpful: $ cat 0002.history 1 0/3000858 no recovery target specified I was wondering if we could improve that a bit for a promotion. One

Re: [HACKERS] Improving overflow checks when adding tuple to PGresult Re: [GENERAL] Retrieving query results

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Michael Paquier >> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Attached are two patches: >&g

Re: [HACKERS] More replication race conditions

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Today's run has finished with the same failure: > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=dangomushi=2017-08-27%2018%3A00%3A13 > Attached is a patch to make this

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

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> On 2017-06-12 15:12:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Commit 4b4b680c3d6d8485155d4d4bf0a92d3a874b7a65 (M

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

would get vacuumed twice, still this does not cause an error: =# vacuum parent, child_10001_2; VACUUM And with the de-duplication patch on top of it, things are vacuumed only once. On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Bossart, Nathan <bossa...@amazon.com> wrote: > On 8/23/17, 11:59 PM

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pg_rewind: Fix some problems when copying files >2GB.

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >>> I am fine with however you want to handle it, but it seems odd to me >>> that we don't have a way of embedding INT64_FORMAT in a

[HACKERS] Improving overflow checks when adding tuple to PGresult Re: [GENERAL] Retrieving query results

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Attached are two patches: > 1) 0001 refactors the code around pqAddTuple to be able to handle > error messages and assign them in PQsetvalue particularly. > 2) 0002 adds sanity checks in pqAddT

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Robert, Amit and other folks working on extending the existing >> partitioning facility would b

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

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-06-12 15:12:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> Commit 4b4b680c3d6d8485155d4d4bf0a92d3a874b7a65 (Make backend local >> tracking of buffer pins memory efficient., vintage 2014) seems like a >> likely culprit here, but

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > The first patch (0001-) fixes this problem, preventing the > problematic state of WAL segments by retarding restart LSN of a > physical replication slot in a certain condition. FWIW, I have this patch

Re: [HACKERS] Make pg_regress print a connstring with sockdir

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > == starting postmaster== > running with PID 30235; connect with: > psql "host='/tmp/pg_regress-j74yFE' port=50848 dbname='regression'" > == creating database

Re: [HACKERS] Make pg_regress print a connstring with sockdir

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > It's a pain having to find the postmaster command line to get the port > pg_regress started a server on. We print the port in the pg_regress output, > why not the socket directory / host? > > How about > running on

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench: faster version of tpcb-like transaction

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Janes writes: >> It is easy to package 5 of those commands into a single PL/pgSQL function, >> with the other two being implicit via the standard auto-commit behavior >> when explicit transactions

Re: [HACKERS] More replication race conditions

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: >> Attached is a patch to make this code path wait that the transaction >> has been replayed. We could use as well synchronous_commit = apply, &

Re: [HACKERS] More replication race conditions

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > Attached should fix this. +$node_master->poll_query_until('postgres', +"SELECT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM pg_replication_slots WHERE slot_name = 'test_slot' AND active_pid IS NULL)" +) + or die "slot never became

Re: [HACKERS] More replication race conditions

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> contains exactly no means of ensuring that the master's transaction has >> been replayed on the standby befo

Re: [HACKERS] More replication race conditions

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > And *another* replication test race condition just now: > > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=dangomushi=2017-08-26%2019%3A37%3A08 > > As best I can interpret this, it's pointing out that this bit in >

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix bug that can cause walsender not to terminating at shutdown.

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Andres Freund wrote: >> Fix bug that can cause walsender not to terminating at shutdown. >> >> When backpatching c6c333436 I (Andres Freund) mis-resolved a conflict >> in the 9.4 branch. Unfortunately that leads to

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:49 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > Thanks for reviewing! Sorry for the late response, those eclipses don't > just chase themselves... That's quite something to see. > On 8/20/17 10:22 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 18, 2

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > I should also note that the dedupe_relations(...) function needs another > small fix for column lists. Since the lack of a column list means that we > should ANALYZE all columns, a duplicate table name with an empty

Re: [HACKERS] coverage analysis improvements

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 8/21/17 01:23, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Patch 0001 fails to apply as of c629324. > > Updated patches attached. > >> Which versions of lcov and gcov did you use for you

Re: [HACKERS] Combination with priority-based and quorum-based synchronous replications

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > PostgreSQL 9.6 introduced the priority-based multiple synchronous > replication and PostgreSQL 10 introduced the quorum-based one. > Initially I was thinking to use both synchronous replication ways in > combination

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Bossart, Nathan <bossa...@amazon.com> wrote: > On 8/18/17, 12:56 AM, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > According to the docs, VACUUM and ANALYZE "do not support recursing over > inheritance hierarchies&qu

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> e.g. >> replace RelationGetRelationName() with >> RelationGetOptionallyQualifiedRelationName() >> and then control whether we include

Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > It seems to me that we should discuss whether we want to keep the some > syntax such as 'a,b', 'N(a,b)' before thinking whether or not that > making the quorum commit the default behavior of 'N(a,b)' syntax. If > we

Re: [HACKERS] Regression stoping PostgreSQL 9.4.13 if a walsender is running

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Marco Nenciarini wrote: > I have noticed that after the 9.4.13 release PostgreSQL reliably fails > to shutdown with smart and fast method if there is a running walsender. > > The postmaster continues waiting forever for the

Re: [HACKERS] Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > On 2017/06/27 10:22, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Thank you for the patches! I

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Push limit to sort through a subquery

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 3:43 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > Works for me. While I'm sure this won't eclipse previous achievements > in this area, it still seems worthwhile. This one is intentional per what happens in the US today? ;) -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers

Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > With the tests directly in the patch, things are easy to run. WIth > PG10 stabilization work, of course I don't expect much feedback :) > But this set of patches looks like the direction w

Re: [HACKERS] Regressions failures with libxml2 on ArchLinux

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for adding the details directly, downgrading the hard way is > what I am doing now using the past packages of libxml2 in Arch's > archives [1]. ArchLinux is a bit wrong in the fact of shipp

Re: [HACKERS] coverage analysis improvements

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Here is a patch series with some significant reworking and adjusting of > how the coverage analysis tools are run. The result should be that the > "make coverage" runs are faster and more robust, the

Re: [HACKERS] assorted code cleanup

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Here are a few assorted patches I made while working on the stdbool set, > cleaning up various pieces of dead code and weird styles. > > - Drop excessive dereferencing of function pointers -

Re: [HACKERS] Updating line length guidelines

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> We currently still have the guideline that code should fit into an 80 >> character window. But an increasing amount of the code, and code >>

Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:35 AM, David Steele wrote: > This patch should be sufficient for 10/11 but will need some minor > changes for 9.6 to remove the reference to wait_for_archive. Note that > this patch ignores Michael's patch [2] to create WAL history files on a >

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

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> I think it'd be a good idea to backpatch the addition of >> TupleDescAttr(tupledesc, n) to make future backpatching easier. What do

Re: [HACKERS] Support for Secure Transport SSL library on macOS as OpenSSL alternative

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> On 19 Aug 2017, at 23:13, Thomas Munro wrote: >>> I guess it should have a fallback definition, though I don't know what >>> it should be. >> >> Or maybe the guc should only exist if

Re: [HACKERS] recovery_target_time = 'now' is not an error but still impractical setting

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 15 August 2017 at 15:37, Piotr Stefaniak > wrote: > >> One thing I tried was a combination of recovery_target_action = >> 'shutdown' and recovery_target_time = 'now'. The result is

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Bossart, Nathan <bossa...@amazon.com> wrote: >> I’ve rebased this patch with master to create v7, which is attached. > > Thanks for the rebased patch.

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Etsuro Fujita >> wrote: >>> I rebased the patch to HEAD. PFA a new version of the patch. > >> Tom, you were

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM salt length

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: > On 08/17/2017 05:42 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> That's now or never. > > Not really. That constant is just the default to use when creating new > password verifiers, but the code ca

Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> >> wrote: &g

Re: [HACKERS] recovery_target_time = 'now' is not an error but still impractical setting

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > -1 ... every datatype I/O function is entitled to assume it's being > invoked inside a transaction. I do not think we should break that > on a case-by-case basis. So using timestamptz_in directly in xlog.c > was a bad idea,

Re: [HACKERS] recovery_target_time = 'now' is not an error but still impractical setting

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:37 PM, Piotr Stefaniak wrote: > At the very least, I think timestamptz_in() should either complain about > being called outside of transaction or return the expected value, > because returning year 2000 is unuseful at best. I would also like

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM salt length

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: >> The SCRAM salt length is currently set as >> >> /* length of salt when generating new verifiers */ >> #define SCRAM_DEFAULT_SALT_LEN 12 >> >> without further comment. >> >> I suspect that this length

Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Don't know how far back you need to go to find Windows machines > with 4-byte bool, but we have some pretty long-in-the-tooth > buildfarm critters in that lineage, too. >From VS 2003 and upwards the size has always been 1:

Re: [HACKERS] Extra Vietnamese unaccent rules

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Pushed into v11. Thanks. > I'm not really qualified to review the Python coding > style, but I did fix a typo in a comment. No pythonist here, but a large confusing "if" condition without any comments is better if split up

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >> He meant logical replication, > > Oh I could not find he meant logical replication in the original > report. The second message of the thread says so, but the first does not mention logical replication at all. >From here

Re: [HACKERS] Function to move the position of a replication slot

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > pg_advance_replication_slot(...) > > ERROR's on logical slot, for now. Physical slots only. > > Forward-only. > > Future work to allow it to use the logical decoding infrastructure to > fast-forward a slot by reading

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > Do we allow streaming replication among different OS? No. WAL is a binary format. > I thought it is > required that primary and standbys are same platform (in my > understanding this means the same hardware architecture

Re: [HACKERS] Function to move the position of a replication slot

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 7:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: >> On 2017-08-16 17:06:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> If I understand what this is meant to do, maybe better >>> pg_move_replication_slot_lsn() or pg_change_replication_slot_lsn() ?

Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > FWIW, in my opinion if tte current behavior of 'N(a,b)' could confuse > users and we want to break the backward compatibility, I'd rather like > to remove that style in PostgreSQL 10 and to raise an syntax error to >

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

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I have committed that version. I think the exit message can be useful, > because pg_receivewal will usually run as some kind of background > process where the exit status might be not be visible.

Re: [HACKERS] Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal of superuser() checks

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > +1 for 0001 and 0002 in general, but I can't help noticing that they > lead to a noticeable worsening of the error messages in the regression > tests. As the access restriction gets handled by GRANT in this patch,

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > I’ve rebased this patch with master to create v7, which is attached. Thanks for the rebased patch. I am switching into review mode actively now, so I'll look at it soon. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] Generate wait event list and docs from text file

Hi all, As $subject has been touched on two threads recently (https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqTbHLcHFn6m11tfpwAdgz8BmnBza2jjN9AK=sdx_kb...@mail.gmail.com and https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170808213537.wkmmagf2a6i3hjyi@alvherre.pgsql), the list of wait event and their

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I'm thinking that this data is useful to analyze as a stream of related > events, rather than as individual data points. Grepping logs in order to > extract the numbers is lame and slow. If you additionally have

Re: [HACKERS] Orphaned files in base/[oid]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > I think there are some possibilities to close the gap here. We could > e.g. have .delete_on_crash marker files that get installed > when creating a new persistent relfilenode. If we set up things so they > get deleted

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> In vacuum_rel()@vacuum.c, there are a couple of logs that could be >> improved as well with the schema name. > > I agree that there's a lot of room for improvement there. If I'm > allowed some scope creep, I'd

Re: [HACKERS] What users can do with custom ICU collations in Postgres 10

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > Ooh, this finally gives us a path toward case-insensitive default database > collation via CLDR caseLevel. > > http://userguide.icu-project.org/collation >

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Currently vacuum verbose outputs vacuum logs as follows. The first log > message INFO: vacuuming "public.hoge" writes the relation name with > schema name but subsequent vacuum logs output only relation name >

Re: [HACKERS] Regressions failures with libxml2 on ArchLinux

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > Hi Michael, > >> It's been one month since I have done some serious development with >> Archlinux (I was abroad and away from the laptop dedicated to that), >> and surprise, I can see failures in the PG

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >