Re: [HACKERS] array_length(anyarray)

2014-01-10 Thread Dean Rasheed
On 10 January 2014 00:36, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > On 1/10/14, 1:20 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >> >> I'm piling on: it's not clear at all to me why you've special cased >> this to lower_bound=1. First of all, there are other reasons to check >> length than iteration. > Yes, I agree. A length funct

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)

2014-01-10 Thread David Rowley
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote: > Hi, > > Reading over this, I realised that there is a problem with NaN > handling --- once the state becomes NaN, it can never recover. So the > results using the inverse transition function don't match HEAD in > cases like this: > > create ta

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)

2014-01-10 Thread David Rowley
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Dean Rasheed writes: > > Reading over this, I realised that there is a problem with NaN > > handling --- once the state becomes NaN, it can never recover. So the > > results using the inverse transition function don't match HEAD in > > cases lik

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)

2014-01-10 Thread David Rowley
> > > bool_or() > FALSE can be removed, removing TRUE requires a rescan. Could be made > fully invertible by counting the number of TRUE and FALSE values, > similar to my suggestion for how to handle NaN for sum(numeric). > Same works for bool_and(). > > bit_or() > Like boo_or(), 0 can be

Re: [HACKERS] array_length(anyarray)

2014-01-10 Thread Marko Tiikkaja
On 1/10/14, 9:04 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote: On 10 January 2014 00:36, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: Can you point me to some examples? The example I see all the time is code like if array_length(nodes, 1) < 5 then ... do something ... then you realise (or not as the case may be) that this doesn

Re: [HACKERS] array_length(anyarray)

2014-01-10 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:04 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote: > On 10 January 2014 00:36, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: >> On 1/10/14, 1:20 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >>> >>> I'm piling on: it's not clear at all to me why you've special cased >>> this to lower_bound=1. First of all, there are other reasons to che

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)

2014-01-10 Thread Dean Rasheed
On 10 January 2014 08:12, David Rowley wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Dean Rasheed > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Reading over this, I realised that there is a problem with NaN >> handling --- once the state becomes NaN, it can never recover. So the >> results using the inverse transition fu

Re: [HACKERS] array_length(anyarray)

2014-01-10 Thread Marko Tiikkaja
On 1/10/14, 10:41 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: What's needed for better iteration support (IMO) is a function that does what unnest does but returns an array on indexes (one per dimsension) -- a generalization of the _pg_expandarray function. Lets' say 'unnest_dims'. So unnest_dims('{{1,2},{3,4}

Re: [HACKERS] array_length(anyarray)

2014-01-10 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:52 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > On 1/10/14, 10:41 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >> >> What's needed for better iteration support (IMO) >> is a function that does what unnest does but returns an array on >> indexes (one per dimsension) -- a generalization of the >> _pg_expandar

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Relocation of tablespaces in pg_basebackup

2014-01-10 Thread Gabriele Bartolini
Hi Steeve, Il 09/01/14 22:38, Steeve Lennmark ha scritto: > I'm a barman user myself so that was actually my initial thought. Ah! Very good! > If there aren't some kind of hidden internal that I've missed I don't see > a way to convert an OID (only have OID and path at this stage) to a > tablespa

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Relocation of tablespaces in pg_basebackup

2014-01-10 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Gabriele Bartolini < gabriele.bartol...@2ndquadrant.it> wrote: > Hi Steeve, > > Il 09/01/14 22:38, Steeve Lennmark ha scritto: > > I'm a barman user myself so that was actually my initial thought. > > Ah! Very good! > > If there aren't some kind of hidden internal

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Relocation of tablespaces in pg_basebackup

2014-01-10 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-01-10 12:27:23 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Gabriele Bartolini < > gabriele.bartol...@2ndquadrant.it> wrote: > > > Hi Steeve, > > > > Il 09/01/14 22:38, Steeve Lennmark ha scritto: > > > I'm a barman user myself so that was actually my initial thought.

Re: [HACKERS] array_length(anyarray)

2014-01-10 Thread Florian Pflug
On Jan10, 2014, at 11:00 , Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:52 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: >> On 1/10/14, 10:41 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >>> >>> What's needed for better iteration support (IMO) >>> is a function that does what unnest does but returns an array on >>> indexes (one

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)

2014-01-10 Thread Florian Pflug
On Jan10, 2014, at 09:34 , David Rowley wrote: > I just don't quite know yet the base way for the inverse transition function > to communicate this to the caller yet. If you have any ideas on the best way > to do this then I'd really like to hear them. Could they maybe just return NULL as the n

Re: [HACKERS] array_length(anyarray)

2014-01-10 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Florian Pflug wrote: > On Jan10, 2014, at 11:00 , Merlin Moncure wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:52 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: >>> On 1/10/14, 10:41 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: What's needed for better iteration support (IMO) is a function that do

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)

2014-01-10 Thread Tom Lane
Florian Pflug writes: > On Jan10, 2014, at 09:34 , David Rowley wrote: >> I just don't quite know yet the base way for the inverse transition function >> to communicate this to the caller yet. If you have any ideas on the best way >> to do this then I'd really like to hear them. > Could they m

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE

2014-01-10 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 01/10/2014 05:36 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: While I realize that everyone is busy, I'm concerned about the lack of discussing here. It's been 6 full days since I posted my benchmark, which I expected to quickly clear some things up, or at least garner interest, and yet no one has commented her

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE

2014-01-10 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 01/08/2014 06:46 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: A new revision of my patch is attached. I'm getting deadlocks with this patch, using the test script you posted earlier in http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZQh=8xnvgbbzyhjexujbhwznjutjez9t-dbo9t_mx_...@mail.gmail.com. Am doing somethin

[HACKERS] getenv used in libpq caused missing values under Windows

2014-01-10 Thread Pavel Golub
Hello, Pgsql-hackers. As you probably know dealing with Windows MSVCRT is some kind of hell. That's why we have src/port/win32env.c particulalry, because there may be several CRT's loaded at the same time. libpq unfortunately is using standard "getenv" function call to fill connection parameters

Re: [HACKERS] Add CREATE support to event triggers

2014-01-10 Thread Simon Riggs
On 8 January 2014 20:42, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > CREATE SCHEMA IF NOT EXISTS "some schema" AUTHORIZATION "some guy"; Hmm, given in 9.3 it was OK to have only DROP event triggers, I think it should be equally acceptable to have just CREATE, but without every option on CREATE. CREATE SCHEMA is ea

Re: [HACKERS] Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation

2014-01-10 Thread Robert Haas
> 2. Provide a new reloption to specify Wal compression > for update operation on table > Create table tbl(c1 char(100)) With (compress_wal = true); > > Alternative options: > a. compress_wal can take input as operation, e.g. 'insert', 'update', > b. use alternate syntax: >

Re: [HACKERS] Add CREATE support to event triggers

2014-01-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 1/9/14, 11:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Robert Haas escribió: >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera >>> wrote: >> >> Hmm. This seems like a reasonable thing to do, except that I would like the "output" to always

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:21:42AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > I think RAID-1 is a very good comparison because it is successful > > technology and has similar issues. > > > > RAID-1 is like Postgres synchronous_standby_names mode in th

Re: [HACKERS] Add CREATE support to event triggers

2014-01-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 8 January 2014 20:42, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> CREATE SCHEMA IF NOT EXISTS "some schema" AUTHORIZATION "some guy"; > > Hmm, given in 9.3 it was OK to have only DROP event triggers, I think > it should be equally acceptable to have just C

Re: [HACKERS] Add CREATE support to event triggers

2014-01-10 Thread Simon Riggs
On 10 January 2014 15:48, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 8 January 2014 20:42, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> >>> CREATE SCHEMA IF NOT EXISTS "some schema" AUTHORIZATION "some guy"; >> >> Hmm, given in 9.3 it was OK to have only DROP event triggers, I t

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Simon Riggs
On 10 January 2014 15:47, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I know there was a desire to remove this TODO item, but I think we have > brought up enough new issues that we can keep it to see if we can come > up with a solution. Can you summarise what you think the new issues are? All I see is some further r

Re: [HACKERS] [ADMIN] Column missing from pg_statistics

2014-01-10 Thread Tom Lane
Kadri Raudsepp writes: > I have set up a cron-job that sends me daily reports on bloat amount in > tables and indices, which I calculate using pg_stats, not pgstattuple, for > performance and I/O reasons. If the bloat amount or percentage are big > enough, I use pg_repack to get rid of it. At some

Re: [HACKERS] Fixing pg_basebackup with tablespaces found in $PGDATA

2014-01-10 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 03:34:04PM +0100, Bernd Helmle wrote: > > > --On 1. Januar 2014 23:53:46 +0100 Dimitri Fontaine > wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >As much as I've seen people frown upon $subject, it still happens in the > >wild, and Magnus seems to agree that the current failure mode of our > >pg

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)

2014-01-10 Thread Florian Pflug
On Jan10, 2014, at 15:49 , Tom Lane wrote: > Florian Pflug writes: >> Looking at the code it seems that for quite a few existing aggregates, >> the state remains NULL until the first non-NULL input is processed. But >> that doesn't hurt much - those aggregates can remain as they are until >> some

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)

2014-01-10 Thread Tom Lane
Florian Pflug writes: > On Jan10, 2014, at 15:49 , Tom Lane wrote: >> Also, it might be reasonable for both the regular and the inverse >> transition functions to be strict. If a null entering the window >> does not matter, then a null exiting the window doesn't either, no? > That's not true, I

Re: [HACKERS] Add CREATE support to event triggers

2014-01-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 10 January 2014 15:48, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> On 8 January 2014 20:42, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> CREATE SCHEMA IF NOT EXISTS "some schema" AUTHORIZATION "some guy"; >>> >>> Hmm

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)

2014-01-10 Thread Kevin Grittner
Florian Pflug wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Florian Pflug writes: >>> For float 4 and float8, wasn't the consensus that the potential >>> lossy-ness of addition makes this impossible anyway, even >>> without the NaN issue? But... >> >> Well, that was my opinion, I'm not sure if it was consensus ;-

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Hannu Krosing
On 01/10/2014 05:09 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 10 January 2014 15:47, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> I know there was a desire to remove this TODO item, but I think we have >> brought up enough new issues that we can keep it to see if we can come >> up with a solution. > Can you summarise what you thi

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)

2014-01-10 Thread Tom Lane
Kevin Grittner writes: > Aggregates on approximate (floating-point) numbers are not nearly > as consistent as many people probably assume.  Picture for a minute > a table where a column contains positive floating point numbers > happen to be located in the heap in increasing order, perhaps as > th

Re: [HACKERS] new json funcs

2014-01-10 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Is it just me, or is the json_array_element(json, int) function not documented? (Not a bug in this patch, I think ...) -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@p

Re: [HACKERS] Add CREATE support to event triggers

2014-01-10 Thread Simon Riggs
On 10 January 2014 17:07, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 10 January 2014 15:48, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: On 8 January 2014 20:42, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > CREATE SCHEMA IF NOT EXIST

Re: [HACKERS] new json funcs

2014-01-10 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 01/10/2014 12:42 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Is it just me, or is the json_array_element(json, int) function not documented? (Not a bug in this patch, I think ...) As discussed at the time, we didn't document the functions underlying the json operators, just the operators themselves. ch

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)

2014-01-10 Thread Florian Pflug
On Jan10, 2014, at 18:14 , Kevin Grittner wrote: > Given that this is already the case with aggregates on floating > point approximate numbers, why should we rule out an optimization > which only makes rounding errors more likely to be visible? The > real issue here is that if you are using an ap

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)

2014-01-10 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > Kevin Grittner writes: >> The real issue here is that if you are using an approximate data type >> and expecting exact answers, you will have problems. > That's a canard. People who know what they're doing (admittedly a > minority) do not expect exact answers, but they do expect to be

Re: [HACKERS] Add CREATE support to event triggers

2014-01-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> That's project policy >> and always has been. When somebody implements 50% of a feature, or >> worse yet 95% of a feature, it violates the POLA for users and doesn't >> always subsequently get completed, leaving us with long-term warts >> th

Re: [HACKERS] [ANNOUNCE] IMCS: In Memory Columnar Store for PostgreSQL

2014-01-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> It would be nice to have better operating system support for this. >> For example, IIUC, 64-bit Linux has 128TB of address space available >> for user processes. When you clone(), it ca

Re: [HACKERS] [ANNOUNCE] IMCS: In Memory Columnar Store for PostgreSQL

2014-01-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote: Well, right now we just reopen the same object from all of the pr

Re: [HACKERS] new json funcs

2014-01-10 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 01/10/2014 12:42 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Is it just me, or is the json_array_element(json, int) function not >> documented? > As discussed at the time, we didn't document the functions underlying > the json operators, just the operators themselves. I see though

Re: [HACKERS] nested hstore patch

2014-01-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > * I have replicated all the json processing functions for jsonb >(although not the json generating functions, such as to_json). Most >of these currently work by turning the jsonb back into json and then >processing as before. I a

Re: [HACKERS] [ANNOUNCE] IMCS: In Memory Columnar Store for PostgreSQL

2014-01-10 Thread Claudio Freire
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Claudio Freire > wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> It would be nice to have better operating system support for this. >>> For example, IIUC, 64-bit Linux has 128TB of address sp

Re: [HACKERS] nested hstore patch

2014-01-10 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 01/10/2014 01:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: * The jsonb regression test currently contains U+ABCD - I guess we'd better use some hex encoding or whatever for that - unlike json, the jsonb de-serializer dissolves unicode escapes. H

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE

2014-01-10 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > I'm getting deadlocks with this patch, using the test script you posted > earlier in > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZQh=8xnvgbbzyhjexujbhwznjutjez9t-dbo9t_mx_...@mail.gmail.com. > Am doing something wrong, or is that a regr

Re: [HACKERS] new json funcs

2014-01-10 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 01/10/2014 01:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: On 01/10/2014 12:42 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Is it just me, or is the json_array_element(json, int) function not documented? As discussed at the time, we didn't document the functions underlying the json operators, just the oper

Re: [HACKERS] [ANNOUNCE] IMCS: In Memory Columnar Store for PostgreSQL

2014-01-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: >>> You can map a segment at fork time, and unmap it after forking. That >>> doesn't really use RAM, since it's supposed to be lazily allocated (it >>> can be forced to be so, I believe, with PROT_NONE and MAP_NORESERVE, >>> but I don't think

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)

2014-01-10 Thread Florian Pflug
On Jan10, 2014, at 19:08 , Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> Kevin Grittner writes: >>> The real issue here is that if you are using an approximate data type >>> and expecting exact answers, you will have problems. > >> That's a canard. People who know what they're doing (admittedly a >> minority)

Re: [HACKERS] new json funcs

2014-01-10 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 01/10/2014 01:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> See commits 94133a935414407920a47d06a6e22734c974c3b8 and >> 908ab80286401bb20a519fa7dc7a837631f20369. > OK, I can fix that I guess. Sure, just remove the DESCR comments for the functions that aren't meant to be used directly. I

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 01/10/2014 07:47 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: I know there was a desire to remove this TODO item, but I think we have brought up enough new issues that we can keep it to see if we can come up with a solution. I have added a link to this discussion on the TODO item. I think we will need at leas

Re: [HACKERS] new json funcs

2014-01-10 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: > I wonder whether we should add an opr_sanity test verifying that operator > implementation functions don't have their own comments? The trouble is > that there are a few that are supposed to, but maybe that list is stable > enough that it'd be okay to memorialize in the expected

Re: [HACKERS] new json funcs

2014-01-10 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 01/10/2014 12:42 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >Is it just me, or is the json_array_element(json, int) function not > >documented? > > As discussed at the time, we didn't document the functions > underlying the json operators, just the operators themselves. Oh, I see.

Re: [HACKERS] [ANNOUNCE] IMCS: In Memory Columnar Store for PostgreSQL

2014-01-10 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > I've often thought that 64-bit machines are so capable that there's no > reason to go any higher. But lately I've started to wonder. There > are already machines out there with >2^40 bytes of physical memory, > and the number just keeps creeping up. When you reserve a coup

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)

2014-01-10 Thread Tom Lane
Florian Pflug writes: > On Jan10, 2014, at 19:08 , Tom Lane wrote: >> Although, having said that ... maybe "build your own aggregate" would >> be a reasonable suggestion for people who need this? I grant that >> it's going to be a minority requirement, maybe even a small minority >> requirement.

Re: [HACKERS] new json funcs

2014-01-10 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 01/10/2014 01:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: On 01/10/2014 01:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: See commits 94133a935414407920a47d06a6e22734c974c3b8 and 908ab80286401bb20a519fa7dc7a837631f20369. OK, I can fix that I guess. Sure, just remove the DESCR comments for the functions that a

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE

2014-01-10 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 01/10/2014 08:37 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: I'm getting deadlocks with this patch, using the test script you posted earlier in http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZQh=8xnvgbbzyhjexujbhwznjutjez9t-dbo9t_mx_...@mail.gmail.com. A

Re: [HACKERS] Time to do our Triage for 9.4

2014-01-10 Thread Josh Berkus
All, To make this easier for everyone to participate in, I've created a wiki page: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/9.4CF4Triage Please add the patches you know well to the appropriate list, thanks! -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailin

Re: [HACKERS] new json funcs

2014-01-10 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera writes: > Oh, I see. That's fine with me. From the source code it's hard to see > when a SQL-callable function is only there to implement an operator, > though (and it seems a bit far-fetched to suppose that the developer > will think, upon seeing an undocumented function, "oh thi

Re: [HACKERS] new json funcs

2014-01-10 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan writes: > The history here is that originally I was intending to have these > functions documented, and so the descriptions were made to match the > operator descriptions, so that we didn't get a failure on this test. > Later we decided not to document them as part of last releas

Re: [HACKERS] new json funcs

2014-01-10 Thread David Fetter
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 02:39:12PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan writes: > > The history here is that originally I was intending to have these > > functions documented, and so the descriptions were made to match the > > operator descriptions, so that we didn't get a failure on this tes

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE

2014-01-10 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Why does it deadlock with the btreelock patch? I don't see why it should. If > you have two backends inserting a single tuple, and they conflict, one of > them should succeed to insert, and the other one should update. Are you sure tha

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)

2014-01-10 Thread Mark Dilger
FYI, I'm using the verb "rewind" to talk about using the negative transition aggregation function to get a prior value.  I don't know if this is the right verb. Conceptually, when aggregating over floating point numbers, there is some infinitely precise theoretical value, and the computation is

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Upgrade to Autoconf 2.69

2014-01-10 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 08:19:49AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > That was probably me. I'll look into it. > > > > > On Jan 6, 2014, at 11:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > Bruce Momjian writes: > >>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 02:48:21AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> 3. pg_upgrade ignores the fac

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Upgrade to Autoconf 2.69

2014-01-10 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian writes: > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 08:19:49AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> That was probably me. I'll look into it. > and in pg_log_v() I see: > switch (type) > ... > case PG_FATAL: > printf("\n%s", _(message)); > printf("Failure,

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Upgrade to Autoconf 2.69

2014-01-10 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Bruce Momjian wrote: > I know Peter is looking at this, but I looked at and I can't see the > problem. Every call of exec_prog() that uses pg_resetxlog has > throw_error = true, and the test there is: > > result = system(cmd); > > if (result != 0) > ... > pg_log(FATAL, ...)

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Upgrade to Autoconf 2.69

2014-01-10 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 04:06:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 08:19:49AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> That was probably me. I'll look into it. > > > and in pg_log_v() I see: > > > switch (type) > > ... > > case PG_FAT

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE

2014-01-10 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 01/10/2014 10:00 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Why does it deadlock with the btreelock patch? I don't see why it should. If you have two backends inserting a single tuple, and they conflict, one of them should succeed to insert, and th

Re: [HACKERS] Disallow arrays with non-standard lower bounds

2014-01-10 Thread Jim Nasby
On 1/9/14, 10:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Jim Nasby writes: ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a huge mistake. I've never seen anyone make use of it, can't think of any legitimate use cases for it, and hate the stupendous amount of extra code needed to deal with it.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)

2014-01-10 Thread David Rowley
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Although, having said that ... maybe "build your own aggregate" would > be a reasonable suggestion for people who need this? I grant that > it's going to be a minority requirement, maybe even a small minority > requirement. People who have the

Re: [HACKERS] Time to do our Triage for 9.4

2014-01-10 Thread David Rowley
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > All, > > To make this easier for everyone to participate in, I've created a wiki > page: > > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/9.4CF4Triage > > Please add the patches you know well to the appropriate list, thanks! > > I know my own patch pretty

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Jim Nasby
On 1/10/14, 12:59 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: I know I am the one that instigated all of this so I want to be very clear on what I and what I am confident that my customers would expect. If a synchronous slave goes down, the master continues to operate. That is all. I don't care if it is config

Re: [HACKERS] Add CREATE support to event triggers

2014-01-10 Thread Simon Riggs
On 10 January 2014 18:17, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> That's project policy >>> and always has been. When somebody implements 50% of a feature, or >>> worse yet 95% of a feature, it violates the POLA for users and doesn't >>> always subsequently

Re: [HACKERS] Disallow arrays with non-standard lower bounds

2014-01-10 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 01/10/2014 04:26 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: On 1/9/14, 10:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Jim Nasby writes: ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a huge mistake. I've never seen anyone make use of it, can't think of any legitimate use cases for it, and hate the stupendous amo

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-01-10 10:59:23 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On 01/10/2014 07:47 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >I know there was a desire to remove this TODO item, but I think we have > >brought up enough new issues that we can keep it to see if we can come > >up with a solution. I have added a link

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Stephen Frost
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 2014-01-10 10:59:23 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > If a synchronous slave goes down, the master continues to operate. That is > > all. I don't care if it is configurable (I would be fine with that). I don't > > care if it is not automatic (e.g

Re: [HACKERS] Disallow arrays with non-standard lower bounds

2014-01-10 Thread David Fetter
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 03:26:04PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 1/9/14, 10:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >Jim Nasby writes: > >>ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was > >>a huge mistake. I've never seen anyone make use of it, can't think > >>of any legitimate use cases for it

Re: [HACKERS] Disallow arrays with non-standard lower bounds

2014-01-10 Thread Kevin Grittner
Gavin Flower wrote: > Starting arrays at zero makes the most sense, as then you can > calculate the displacement simply as (index) * (size of entry), > and not have subtract one from the index first.  This would be my > preference. The SQL standard explicitly specifies that arrays positions rang

Re: [HACKERS] Disallow arrays with non-standard lower bounds

2014-01-10 Thread Jeff Janes
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 1/9/14, 10:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Jim Nasby writes: >> >>> ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a huge >>> mistake. I've never seen anyone make use of it, can't think of any >>> legitimate use cases for it,

Re: [HACKERS] Disallow arrays with non-standard lower bounds

2014-01-10 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: >> >> On 1/9/14, 10:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> >>> Jim Nasby writes: ISTM that allowing users to pick arbitrary lower array bounds was a huge mistake. I've never seen anyone make

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-01-10 17:02:08 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > On 2014-01-10 10:59:23 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > If a synchronous slave goes down, the master continues to operate. That is > > > all. I don't care if it is configurable (I would be fi

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Stephen Frost
Andres, On Friday, January 10, 2014, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-01-10 17:02:08 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com ) wrote: > > > On 2014-01-10 10:59:23 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > If a synchronous slave goes down, the master continues to operate.

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 01/10/2014 01:49 PM, Andres Freund wrote: I know I am the one that instigated all of this so I want to be very clear on what I and what I am confident that my customers would expect. If a synchronous slave goes down, the master continues to operate. That is all. I don't care if it is config

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-01-10 14:29:58 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > db02 goes down. It doesn't matter why. It is down. db01 continues to accept > orders, allow people to log into the website and we can still service > accounts. The continuity of service continues. Why is that configuration advantageous over a

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE

2014-01-10 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > This is pretty much the same issue we discussed wrt. exclusion contraints. > If the tuple being inserted conflicts with several existing tuples, what to > do? I think the best answer would be to return and lock them all. It could > still

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 01/10/2014 02:33 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2014-01-10 14:29:58 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: db02 goes down. It doesn't matter why. It is down. db01 continues to accept orders, allow people to log into the website and we can still service accounts. The continuity of service continues. Why

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 01/10/2014 02:33 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2014-01-10 14:29:58 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: db02 goes down. It doesn't matter why. It is down. db01 continues to accept orders, allow people to log into the website and we can still service accounts. The continuity of service continues. W

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2014-01-10 17:28:55 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Why do you know that you didn't loose any transactions? Trivial network > > hiccups, a restart of a standby, IO overload on the standby all can > > cause a very short interruptions in the walsender connection - leading > > to degradation.

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Jeff Janes
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-01-10 14:29:58 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > db02 goes down. It doesn't matter why. It is down. db01 continues to > accept > > orders, allow people to log into the website and we can still service > > accounts. The continuity of s

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-01-10 14:44:28 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On 01/10/2014 02:33 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > >On 2014-01-10 14:29:58 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>db02 goes down. It doesn't matter why. It is down. db01 continues to accept > >>orders, allow people to log into the website and we

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings, On Friday, January 10, 2014, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2014-01-10 17:28:55 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > Why do you know that you didn't loose any transactions? Trivial network > > > hiccups, a restart of a standby, IO overload on the standby all can > > > cause a very shor

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 01/10/2014 02:47 PM, Andres Freund wrote: Really, the commits themselves are sent to the server at exactly the same speed independent of sync/async. The only thing that's delayed is the *notificiation* of the client that sent the commit. Not the commit itself. Which is irrelevant to the po

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 01/10/2014 02:57 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: Yes, if you have a BBU that memory is authoritative in most cases. But in that case the argument of having two disks is pretty much pointless, the SPOF suddenly became the battery + ram. If that is a concern then use multiple controller

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Hannu Krosing
On 01/10/2014 11:59 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On 01/10/2014 02:57 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >> Yes, if you have a BBU that memory is authoritative in most >> cases. But >> in that case the argument of having two disks is pretty much >> pointless, >> the SPOF suddenly became the ba

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Josh Berkus
On 01/10/2014 02:59 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On 01/10/2014 02:47 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> Really, the commits themselves are sent to the server at exactly the >> same speed independent of sync/async. The only thing that's delayed is >> the *notificiation* of the client that sent the co

Re: [HACKERS] Add CREATE support to event triggers

2014-01-10 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Can we please stop arguing over a problem I don't have? I started with CREATE SCHEMA because it is one of the easy cases, not because it was the most difficult case: we only need to deparse the bits of it that don't involve the objects within, because those are reported by the event trigger as se

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Josh Berkus
On 01/10/2014 01:49 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-01-10 10:59:23 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >> On 01/10/2014 07:47 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >>> I know there was a desire to remove this TODO item, but I think we have >>> brought up enough new issues that we can keep it to see if we can

Re: [HACKERS] Time to do our Triage for 9.4

2014-01-10 Thread Josh Berkus
On 01/10/2014 01:34 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> All, >> >> To make this easier for everyone to participate in, I've created a wiki >> page: >> >> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/9.4CF4Triage >> >> Please add the patches you know well to the

Re: [HACKERS] Standalone synchronous master

2014-01-10 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 01/10/2014 03:17 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: Any continuous replication should not be a SPOF. The current behavior guarantees that a two node sync cluster is a SPOF. The proposed behavior removes that. Again, if that's your goal, then use async replication. I think I have gone about this the

  1   2   >