Re: [HACKERS] drop duplicate buffers in OS

2014-03-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:53 AM, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote: > Attached is latest patch. > I change little bit at PinBuffer() in bufmgr.c. It will evict target clean > file cache in OS more exactly. > > - if (!(buf->flags & BM_FADVED) && !(buf->flags & BM_JUST_DIRTIED)) > + if (!(buf->flags & BM_DIRTY)

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

2014-03-04 Thread Josh Berkus
On 03/04/2014 11:43 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On March 4, 2014 8:39:55 PM CET, Simon Riggs wrote: >> I was going to add an option to increase lock level, but I can't see >> why you'd want it even. The dumps are consistent... > > Mvcc scans only guarantee that individual scans are consistent, not

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

2014-03-04 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-03-04 14:29:31 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 03/04/2014 11:43 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On March 4, 2014 8:39:55 PM CET, Simon Riggs wrote: > >> I was going to add an option to increase lock level, but I can't see > >> why you'd want it even. The dumps are consistent... > > > > Mvcc s

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To:

2014-03-04 Thread Greg Stark
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY, otoh, already did break pg_dump, > and we had to hack things to fix it; see commit > 683abc73dff549e94555d4020dae8d02f32ed78b. Well pg_dump was only broken in that there was a new catalog state to deal with. But the comm

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

2014-03-04 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-03-04 16:37:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > However, it seems possible that we could have a mode in which a read-only > session did all its catalog fetches according to the transaction snapshot. > That would get us to a situation where the backend-internal lookups that > ruleutils relies on wou

Re: [HACKERS] Review: Patch FORCE_NULL option for copy COPY in CSV mode

2014-03-04 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 03/03/2014 06:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: That difference actually made the file_fdw regression results plain wrong, in my view, in that they expected a quoted empty string to be turned to null even when the null string was something e

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To:

2014-03-04 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Stark writes: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY, otoh, already did break pg_dump, >> and we had to hack things to fix it; see commit >> 683abc73dff549e94555d4020dae8d02f32ed78b. > Well pg_dump was only broken in that there was a new catalog state

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

2014-03-04 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > On 2014-03-04 16:37:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> However, it seems possible that we could have a mode in which a read-only >> session did all its catalog fetches according to the transaction snapshot. >> That would get us to a situation where the backend-internal lookups th

Re: [HACKERS] Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067)

2014-03-04 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 01:35:45PM -0500, Noah Misch wrote: > Having that said, I can appreciate the value of tightening the socket mode for > a bit of *extra* safety: > > --- a/src/test/regress/pg_regress.c > +++ b/src/test/regress/pg_regress.c > @@ -2299,4 +2299,5 @@ regression_main(int argc, ch

Re: [HACKERS] The behavior of CheckRequiredParameterValues()

2014-03-04 Thread Haribabu Kommi
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote: > Hi all, > > I had doubts regarding behavior of CheckRequiredParameterValues() function. > > I could not start standby server which is created by pg_basebackup > with following scenario. > 1. Start the master server with 'wal_level = archve'

Re: [HACKERS] Row-security on updatable s.b. views

2014-03-04 Thread Craig Ringer
On 03/04/2014 09:41 PM, Yeb Havinga wrote: > On 04/03/14 02:36, Craig Ringer wrote: >> >> I've pushed an update to the branch with the fix for varno handling. >> Thanks. It's tagged rls-9.4-upd-sb-views-v8 . >> >> I've almost run out of time to spend on row security for this >> commitfest, unfortun

Re: [HACKERS] The behavior of CheckRequiredParameterValues()

2014-03-04 Thread Amit Langote
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote: > > xlog.c:6177 > if (ControlFile->wal_level < WAL_LEVEL_HOT_STANDBY) > ereport(ERROR, > (errmsg("hot standby is not possible because wal_level was not > > So we have to start and stop standby server with changed > wal_leve

[HACKERS] API change advice: Passing plan invalidation info from the rewriter into the planner?

2014-03-04 Thread Craig Ringer
Hi all One of the remaining issues with row security is how to pass plan invalidation information generated in the rewriter back into the planner. With row security, it's necessary to set a field in PlannerGlobal, tracking the user ID of the user the query was planned for if row security was appl

Re: [HACKERS] UNION ALL on partitioned tables won't use indices.

2014-03-04 Thread Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Hello, I haven't look closer on their relationship. > > Hello, I examined the your patch and it seemed reasonable, but I > > have one question about this patch. > > > You made ec_relids differ to the union of all ec members' > > em_relids. Is it right? > > ec_relids has never included child reli

Re: [HACKERS] Trigger information for auto_explain.

2014-03-04 Thread Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Hello, > Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > Hi, I saw this patch has been moved into "committed patches" but > > only the first part (0001_..) for the core is committed as of > > 32001ab but the rest for extension side seem not to have been > > committed. > > > > Would you mind taking a look on that, Á

<    1   2