Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] In progress INSERT wrecks plans on table

2013-07-13 Thread Abhijit Menon-Sen
At 2013-07-12 16:25:14 -0700, jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote: I think the reviewer of a performance patch should do some independent testing of the performance, to replicate the author's numbers; and hopefully with a few different scenarios. You're quite right. I apologise for being lazy; doubly

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] In progress INSERT wrecks plans on table

2013-07-13 Thread Abhijit Menon-Sen
At 2013-07-13 14:19:23 +0530, a...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: The timings above are with both xid_in_snapshot_cache.v1.patch and cache_TransactionIdInProgress.v2.patch applied For anyone who wants to try to reproduce the results, here's the patch I used, which is both patches above plus some typo

Re: [HACKERS] Review: extension template

2013-07-13 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Hi, Please find attached a new version (v10) of the patch that fixes the reported dependencies problems and add some new regression tests to cover them. The patch implements the solution we discuted privately with Markus while at the CHAR(13) conference: - create template for extension is now

[HACKERS] Re: Patch to add support of IF NOT EXISTS to others CREATE statements

2013-07-13 Thread Abhijit Menon-Sen
At 2013-06-12 14:29:59 -0300, fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote: The attached patch add support to IF NOT EXISTS to CREATE statements listed below: […] I noticed that this patch was listed as Needs Review with no reviewers, so I had a quick look. It applies with a couple of trailing whitespace

Re: [Review] Re: [HACKERS] minor patch submission: CREATE CAST ... AS EXPLICIT

2013-07-13 Thread Cédric Villemain
Generally speaking, I agree with Robert's objection. The patch in itself adds only one unnecessary keyword, which probably wouldn't be noticeable, but the argument for it implies that we should be willing to add a lot more equally-unnecessary keywords, which I'm not. gram.o is already

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: simple date constructor from numeric values

2013-07-13 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello 2013/7/12 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net: There is a small inconsistency: select time '12:30:57.123456789'; gives 12:30:57.123457 but select make_time(12, 30, 57.123456789); gives 12:30:57.123456 fixed - see attached patch Regards Pavel make_date-v3.patch

[HACKERS] ecpg prototype mismatch

2013-07-13 Thread Peter Eisentraut
ECPG's pgtypeslib contains two slightly different prototypes for PGTYPEStimestamp_defmt_scan(), neither of which is in a header file. I propose something like the attached patch, although I'm not sure which header file is the most appropriate one. diff --git a/src/interfaces/ecpg/pgtypeslib/dt.h

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pgbench --throttle (submission 7 - with lag measurement)

2013-07-13 Thread Greg Smith
On 6/30/13 2:04 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: My guess is the OS. PQfinish or select do/are systems calls that present opportunities to switch context. I think that the OS is passing time with other processes on the same host, expecially postgres backends, when it is not with the client. I went

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pgbench --throttle (submission 7 - with lag measurement)

2013-07-13 Thread Fabien COELHO
Hello Greg, There's a refactoring possible here that seems to make this whole class of problem go away. If I change pgbench so that PQfinish isn't called for any client until *all* of the clients are actually finished with transactions, the whole issue goes away. Sure. If the explanation

Re: [HACKERS] Regex pattern with shorter back reference does NOT work as expected

2013-07-13 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: Jeevan Chalke jeevan.cha...@enterprisedb.com writes: Following example does not work as expected: -- Should return TRUE but returning FALSE SELECT 'Programmer' ~ '(\w).*?\1' as t; This is clearly broken, but I'm uncomfortable with the proposed patch. As written, it changes

Re: [HACKERS] GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax

2013-07-13 Thread David Fetter
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:49:45AM +0200, Karol Trzcionka wrote: Next version: - cleanup - regression test - fix issue reported by johto (invalid values in parallel transactions) I would like more feedback and comments about the patch, as some parts may be too hacky. In particular, is it a

Re: [HACKERS] checking variadic any argument in parser - should be array

2013-07-13 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 06/29/2013 03:29 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: 5. This patch has user visibility, i.e. now we are throwing an error when user only says VARIADIC NULL like: select concat(variadic NULL) is NULL; Previously it was working but now we are throwing an error. Well we are now more stricter

Re: [HACKERS] checking variadic any argument in parser - should be array

2013-07-13 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello 2013/7/14 Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net: On 06/29/2013 03:29 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: 5. This patch has user visibility, i.e. now we are throwing an error when user only says VARIADIC NULL like: select concat(variadic NULL) is NULL; Previously it was working but now we