Re: [HACKERS] Misplaced BKI entries in pg_amproc.h

2014-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:14:43AM +0200, Antonin Houska wrote: > While checking something, I noticed that opfamilies 3626, 3683, 3901 > (all btree AM), 3903 (hash) and 3919 (gist) are all defined in the > section marked as "gin". > > (I'm not sure if it helps to deliver a patch - it may be easier

Re: [HACKERS] Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary

2014-01-31 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Stark writes: > One thing I keep coming back to is a bad ran chip setting a bit in the > block number. But I just can't seem to get it to add up. The difference is > not a power of two, it had happened on two different machines, and we don't > see other weirdness on the machine. It seems like

Re: [HACKERS] FOR [SHARE|UPDATE] NOWAIT may still block in EvalPlanQualFetch

2014-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 04:00:03PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > FOR SHARE|UPDATE NOWAIT will still block if they have to follow a ctid > chain because the call to EvalPlanQualFetch doesn't take a param for > noWait, so it doesn't know not to block if the updated row can't be locked. > > The attach

Re: [HACKERS] FOR UPDATE/SHARE incompatibility with GROUP BY, DISTINCT, HAVING and window functions

2014-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 04:20:40PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Hi all, > > By having a look at the documentation of SELECT, it is not specified that FOR > SHARE/UPDATE and friends are incompatible with the clauses in $subject > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/sql-select.html > This r

Re: [HACKERS] mvcc catalo gsnapshots and TopTransactionContext

2014-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 03:02:36PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2013-10-04 15:15:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> Andres, are you (or is anyone) going to try to fix this assertion failure? > > > > I think short term replacing it by IsTran

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Insert result does not match record count

2014-01-31 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian writes: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 06:34:27PM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote: >> Unfortunately, I gave up on it as being over my head when I noticed I >> was changing the protocol itself. I should have notified the list so >> someone else could have taken over. > OK, so that brings up a g

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Insert result does not match record count

2014-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 04:38:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 06:34:27PM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote: > >> Unfortunately, I gave up on it as being over my head when I noticed I > >> was changing the protocol itself. I should have notified the list so >

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Possible bug with row_to_json

2014-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 05:34:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Further poking at this issue shows that there are related behaviors that > aren't fixed by my proposed patch. The original complaint can be > replicated in the regression database like this: > > select row_to_json(i8) from (select q1 as

Re: [HACKERS] WITH ORDINALITY planner improvements

2014-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 07:25:17PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > I wrote: > > I've reworked on the patch. > > Attached is an updated version of the patch. In that version the code for the > newly added function build_function_pathkeys() has been made more simple by > using the macro INTEGER_BTREE

Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests failing if not launched on db "regression"

2014-01-31 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:28 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >>> I took a look at this with a view to committing it but on examination >>> I'm not sure this is the best way to proceed. The proposed text >>> documents that the tests should be run

Re: [HACKERS] FOR UPDATE/SHARE incompatibility with GROUP BY, DISTINCT, HAVING and window functions

2014-01-31 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 04:20:40PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> By having a look at the documentation of SELECT, it is not specified that FOR >> SHARE/UPDATE and friends are incompatible with the clauses in $subject >> http:/

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Possible bug with row_to_json

2014-01-31 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian writes: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 05:34:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Further poking at this issue shows that there are related behaviors that >> aren't fixed by my proposed patch. > Where are we on this? Still have no idea how to fix the whole-row-Var case. We could fix some of

Re: [HACKERS] WITH ORDINALITY planner improvements

2014-01-31 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian writes: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 07:25:17PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote: >> Attached is an updated version of the patch. In that version the code for >> the >> newly added function build_function_pathkeys() has been made more simple by >> using the macro INTEGER_BTREE_FAM_OID. > I

Re: [HACKERS] What is happening on buildfarm member crake?

2014-01-31 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Yeah. If Robert's diagnosis is correct, and it sounds pretty plausible, >> then this is really just one instance of a bug that's probably pretty >> widespread in our signal handlers. Somebody needs to go through 'em >> al

Re: [HACKERS] LDAP: bugfix and deprecated OpenLDAP API

2014-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 01:31:26PM +, Albe Laurenz wrote: > Bind attempts to an LDAP server should time out after two seconds, > allowing additional lines in the service control file to be parsed > (which provide a fall back to a secondary LDAP server or default options). > The existing code fa

Re: [HACKERS] Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary

2014-01-31 Thread Josh Berkus
On 01/31/2014 01:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Stark writes: >> One thing I keep coming back to is a bad ran chip setting a bit in the >> block number. But I just can't seem to get it to add up. The difference is >> not a power of two, it had happened on two different machines, and we don't >> see

Re: [HACKERS] Redesigning checkpoint_segments

2014-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 12:08:30AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > You can also set min_recycle_wal_size = checkpoint_wal_size, which > gets you the same behavior as without the patch, except that it's > more intuitive to set it in terms of "MB of WAL space required", > instead of "# of segments

[HACKERS] [review] PostgreSQL Service on Windows does not start if data directory given is relative path

2014-01-31 Thread MauMau
Hi Rajeev san, I reviewed the patch content. I find this fix useful. I'd like to suggest some code improvements. I'll apply and test the patch when I receive your reply. (1) I think it is appropriate to place find_my_abs_path() in path.c rather than exec.c. Please look at the comments at

Re: [HACKERS] Compression of full-page-writes

2014-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:30:41PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > > Sure. To be honest, when I received the same request from Andres, > > I did that benchmark. But unfortunately because of machine trouble, > > I could not report it, yet. Will do that again. > > Here is the benchmark result: > > * Re

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Insert result does not match record count

2014-01-31 Thread Vik Fearing
On 01/31/2014 10:56 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 04:38:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Bruce Momjian writes: >>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 06:34:27PM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote: Unfortunately, I gave up on it as being over my head when I noticed I was changing the protoc

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Insert result does not match record count

2014-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 02:25:16AM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote: > > OK, thanks for the feedback. I understand now. The contents of the > > string will potentially have a larger integer, but the byte length of > > the string in the wire protocol doesn't change. > > > > Let's wait for Vik to reply and

Re: [HACKERS] Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.2

2014-01-31 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > I plan to split the atomics patch into smaller chunks before > reposting. Imo the "Convert the PGPROC->lwWaitLink list into a dlist > instead of open coding it." is worth being applied independently from > the rest of the series, it simplies

Re: [HACKERS] Bugfix and new feature for PGXS

2014-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:00:30PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 10/10/2013 09:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >On Tue, 2013-10-08 at 10:04 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >>On 10/07/2013 08:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >>>I suspect this line > >>> > >>>submake-libpq: $(libdir)/libpq.so

Re: [HACKERS] [tiny doc fix] statistics are not retained across immediate shutdown

2014-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Applied. --- On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 04:11:09AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > Hi, > > In the following page, statistics are kept across server restarts: > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/monitoring-st

Re: [HACKERS] Bugfix and new feature for PGXS

2014-01-31 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 01/31/2014 09:19 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:00:30PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 10/10/2013 09:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On Tue, 2013-10-08 at 10:04 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 10/07/2013 08:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: I suspect this line submake-l

Re: [HACKERS] Bugfix and new feature for PGXS

2014-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 09:28:06PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 01/31/2014 09:19 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:00:30PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >>On 10/10/2013 09:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >>>On Tue, 2013-10-08 at 10:04 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >>

Re: [HACKERS] Small catcache optimization

2014-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 09:13:23PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > Heikki's catcache rehashing stuff reminded me that I'd posted an > optimization to catcache (20121220153555.gh4...@awork2.anarazel.de) some > time back which I didn't have energy to pursue at that point. > > I've brushed the

Re: [HACKERS] Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary

2014-01-31 Thread Greg Stark
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Yeah, I'd been wondering if the WAL record somehow got corrupted while > in memory (presumably after being CRC-checked). It's a bit hard to see > how though. One thing I mentioned early on but bears repeating is that this instance is 9.1.11. A

Re: [HACKERS] Compression of full-page-writes

2014-01-31 Thread Fujii Masao
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:30:41PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> > Sure. To be honest, when I received the same request from Andres, >> > I did that benchmark. But unfortunately because of machine trouble, >> > I could not report it, yet. Will

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans

2014-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 02:39:43PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > Right now, whether or not to autovacuum is the rest of a two-pronged > test. The first prong is based on number of updates and deletes > relative to table size; that triggers a regular autovacuum. The > second prong is based on age(re

Re: [HACKERS] What is happening on buildfarm member crake?

2014-01-31 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > This looks good to me in principle. A couple minor beefs: > > * The addition to CleanupProcSignalState could use a comment, > similar to the one you added in ProcKill. OK. > * I think the code in ProcKill and AuxiliaryProcKill might be more > r

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore multiple --function options

2014-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 09:15:09PM -0400, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Heikki Linnakangas > wrote: > > Assuming no objections, I'll apply the attached patch to 9.3 and master > > later tonight. > > Just a little stylistic nitpick: could we pluralize the --help output

Re: [HACKERS] Fix picksplit with nan values

2014-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Where are we on this? --- On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 01:38:28PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Alexander Korotkov writes: > > I wrote attached patch by following principles: > > 1) NaN coordinates shouldn't crash or hang GiST. > > 2

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb and nested hstore

2014-01-31 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 01/31/2014 02:48 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: Actually, there is a workaround to the limitations of hstore(record): yeah I'm ok with hstore() function as it is. That also eliminates backwards compatibility concerns so things worked out. The only 'must fix' 9.4 facing issue I see on the ta

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb and nested hstore

2014-01-31 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 01/31/2014 11:35 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Yes, or anyone else who wants to join in. I'd very much welcome a substantial code review - I have been staring at this far too long on my own. I should mention that in fact by far the largest piece of this is not my work, but Oleg and Teodor's

Re: [HACKERS] Retain dynamic shared memory segments for postmaster lifetime

2014-01-31 Thread Amit Kapila
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Hello, I've managed to reconstruct windows build environment and > tried to run the previous patch. Thanks. > > > I will apologize in advance for probably silly questions but I > have two problems. I think both the problems are related a

Re: [HACKERS] Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary

2014-01-31 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus writes: > FWIW, we've periodically seen reports from our clients of replica > databases being slightly larger than the master. Nothing reproducable > or as severe as Greg's issue, or we'd have reported it. But this could > be a more widespread issue, just that it affects most users i

Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] pg_ctl always uses the same event source

2014-01-31 Thread Amit Kapila
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:20 PM, MauMau wrote: > Hi, Amit san, > > I'm replying to your previous email. I wanted to reply to your latest mail > below, but I removed it from my mailer by mistake. > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1LAg6ndZdWLb5e=Ep5DzcE8KZU=JbmO+tFwySYHm2ja=q...@mail.g

<    1   2