On 6. Januar 2015 at 07:20:21, Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com)
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Manuel Kniep wrote:
Hi,
we are running postges 9.3.5 on gentoo linux kernel 3.16.5, compiled with
gcc 4.8.3
Any ideas ?
#17 0x0062bb9d in
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Not sure whether to just commit this to HEAD and call it a day, or to
risk back-patching.
I think we need to back-patch something; that's a pretty nasty
regression, and I have some
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
Question: Coming in this morning I did an immediate restart and logged
into the database and queried pg_class via index. Everything was
fine, and the leftright verify returns nothing. How did it repair
itself without
On 2015-01-15 11:56:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On 2015-01-15 10:57:10 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
While I'll not cry too hard when we decide to break C89 compatibility,
I don't want it to happen accidentally; so having a pretty old-school
compiler in the
On 01/15/2015 09:28 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Marking this patch as returned with feedback because it is waiting for
input from the author for now a couple of weeks. Heikki, the
refactoring patch has some value, are you planning to push it?
I think you're mixing up with the other thread,
On 01/07/2015 11:53 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
On 07/01/15 00:59, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:24 AM, Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Hi,
when I was fixing how commit_ts handles the XLOG_PARAMETER_CHANGE I noticed
that for wal_log_hints we assign the value in
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On 2015-01-15 10:57:10 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
While I'll not cry too hard when we decide to break C89 compatibility,
I don't want it to happen accidentally; so having a pretty old-school
compiler in the farm seems important to me.
I'd worked on
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 01/15/2015 03:23 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
So now the question is: how did that inconsistency arise? It didn't
necessarily arise at
Timmer, Marius marius.tim...@uni-muenster.de writes:
attached is version 8, fixing remaining issues, adding docs and tests as
requested/agreed.
I'll pick this up --- I've been a bit lax about helping with this
commitfest.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2015-01-15 08:40:34 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I do think that safe is the wrong suffix. Maybe palloc_soft_fail()
or palloc_null() or palloc_no_oom() or palloc_unsafe().
palloc_or_null()?
That'd work for me, too.
Robert Haas wrote:
Hmm, I understood Tom to be opposing the idea of a palloc variant that
returns NULL on failure, and I understand you to be supporting it.
But maybe I'm confused.
Your understanding seems correct to me. I was just saying that your
description of Tom's argument to dislike
Michael Paquier wrote:
Andres, this patch needs more effort from the author, right? So
marking it as returned with feedback.
I will give this patch a look in the current commitfest, if you can
please set as 'needs review' instead with me as reviewer, so that I
don't forget, I would appreciate
From: Timmer, Marius marius.tim...@uni-muenster.de
Hi,
attached is version 8, fixing remaining issues, adding docs and tests as
requested/agreed.
Marius Arne
This looks good to me. Test coverage seems complete. Doc updates are
included. Output format looks like it should be
Etsuro Fujita wrote:
***
*** 817,826 InitPlan(QueryDesc *queryDesc, int eflags)
--- 818,833
break;
case ROW_MARK_COPY:
/* there's no real table here ... */
+
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
+HandleParallelMessages(void)
+{
..
..
+ for (i = 0; i
Hi,
attached is version 8, fixing remaining issues, adding docs and tests as
requested/agreed.
Marius Arne
---
Marius Timmer
Zentrum für Informationsverarbeitung
Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
Einsteinstraße 60
mtimm...@uni-muenster.de
Am 14.01.2015 um 17:42 schrieb Arne
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Hi,
The plot thickens! I looped the test, still stock 9.4 as of this time
and went to lunch. When I came back, the database was in recovery
mode. Here is the rough sequence of events.
Whoa. That looks scary. Did
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:08 AM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Here's an updated version, rebased over the pairing heap code that I just
committed, and fixing those bugs.
So, are we reaching
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:56:48AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 11/30/14 11:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
The API break isn't a big issue imo. The net effect would be that eg
hstore 9.3.6 wouldn't work against a 9.3.5 server. We do that sort of
thing *all the time* --- at least twice in the
On 2015-01-15 20:15:42 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
WARNING: did not find subXID 14955 in MyProc
CONTEXT: PL/pgSQL function cdsreconcileruntable(bigint) line 35
during exception cleanup
WARNING: you don't own a lock of type RowExclusiveLock
CONTEXT: PL/pgSQL function
Manuel Kniep man...@adjust.com writes:
ok after lotâs of testing I could create a test caseÂ
which can be found here https://gist.github.com/rapimo/3c8c1b35270e5854c524Â
itâs written in ruby an depends on the gem activerecord pg and parallelÂ
Hm. I don't see a segfault from this. I do
On 1/15/15 2:29 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:56:48AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 11/30/14 11:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
The API break isn't a big issue imo. The net effect would be that eg
hstore 9.3.6 wouldn't work against a 9.3.5 server. We do that sort of
thing
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I think I'd for now simply not define pg_attribute_aligned() on
platforms where it's not supported, instead of defining it empty. If we
need a softer variant we can name it pg_attribute_aligned_if_possible or
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
Since it's possible the database is a loss, do you see any value in
bootstrappinng it again with checksums turned on? One point of note
is that this is a brand spanking new SSD, maybe we nee to rule out
hardware based
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
(9.3.5 problem report)
I think I saw a similar issue, by a 9.3.5 instance that was affected
by the in pg_upgrade, remove pg_multixact files left behind by
initdb issue (I ran the remediation recommended in the 9.3.5
On 01/14/2015 08:48 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
All those things gathered give the patch attached. Andreas, if you are
fine with it I think that we could pass it to a committer.
Excellent changes. Thanks for the patch and the reviews.
--
Andreas Karlsson
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing
On 1/15/15 5:26 AM, Gilles Darold wrote:
Hello,
There's a long pending issue with pg_dump and extensions that have table
members with foreign keys. This was previously reported in this thread
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
Since it's possible the database is a loss, do you see any value in
bootstrappinng it again with checksums turned on? One point of note
is that
On 1/15/15 6:22 AM, M Tarkeshwar Rao wrote:
We are getting following error message on doing any action on the table
like(Select or open from pgadmin).
Error reports should go to pgsql-general. I'm moving the discussion there (and
BCC'ing -hackers).
Please suggest.
ERROR: missing chunk
All,
Attached is a patch that proposes the following additional role attributes
for review:
* ONLINE_BACKUP - allows role to perform backup operations
- originally proposed as BACKUP - due to concern for the use of that term
in relation to other potential backup related permissions this form
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I do think that safe is the wrong suffix. Maybe palloc_soft_fail()
or palloc_null() or palloc_no_oom() or palloc_unsafe().
I liked palloc_noerror() better myself FWIW.
Voting for palloc_noerror() as well.
--
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
Running this test on another set of hardware to verify -- if this
turns out to be a false alarm which it may very well be, I can only
offer my apologies! I've never had a new drive fail like that, in
that manner. I'll
I wrote:
Manuel Kniep man...@adjust.com writes:
ok after lotâs of testing I could create a test caseÂ
which can be found here https://gist.github.com/rapimo/3c8c1b35270e5854c524Â
itâs written in ruby an depends on the gem activerecord pg and parallelÂ
Hm. I don't see a segfault from
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com
wrote:
On 01/13/2015 12:11 PM, Vladimir Borodin wrote:
05 янв. 2015 г., в 18:15, Vladimir Borodin
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 09:24:01AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 04:48:53PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
What I'm seeing now is that the unaccent regression tests when run under
make check-world abort
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Michael Paquier wrote:
Andres, this patch needs more effort from the author, right? So
marking it as returned with feedback.
I will give this patch a look in the current commitfest, if you can
please set as
Here is a random bag of comments for the v5 patch:
pg_xlogdump fails to build:
CC xlogreader.o
CC rmgrdesc.o
../../src/include/access/rmgrlist.h:32:46: error: 'dbase_desc' undeclared here
(not in a function)
PG_RMGR(RM_DBASE_ID, Database, dbase_redo, dbase_desc, dbase_identify, NULL,
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-12-31 18:35:38 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
+ termoption-j replaceable
class=parameterjobs/replaceable/option/term
+ termoption--jobs=replaceable
class=parameternjobs/replaceable/option/term
+
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 2:28 AM, Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to wrote:
Yeah. (The CF entry is also set to Waiting on Author, which seems
appropriate.)
Seeing nothing happening here for quite some time, marked as returned
with feedback..
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Here's an updated version, rebased over the pairing heap code that I just
committed, and fixing those bugs.
So, are we reaching an outcome for the match happening here?
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
Hello,
I'll look into the case after this, but I'd like to send a
revised patch at this point.
Hm. Seems like this patch is not completely baked yet. Horiguchi-san,
as you are obviously still working on it, would you agree to move it
to the next CF?
Yes, that's fine with me. Thank you.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:
I agree with moving the patch to the next CF - I'm working on the patch,
but I will take a bit more time to submit a new version and I can do
Hello,
There's a long pending issue with pg_dump and extensions that have table
members with foreign keys. This was previously reported in this thread
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+tgmoyvzkadmgh_8el7uvm472geru0b4pnnfjqye6ss1k9...@mail.gmail.com
and discuss by Robert. All PostgreSQL
Hi,
On 2015-01-15 15:05:08 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Hello, I'd synced up this at last.
I think I should finilize my commitfest item for this issue, with
.. Rejected?
Fine with me.
All the patches in the series up to 0008 hav ecommit messages providing
more detail. A short
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com
wrote:
On 01/13/2015 12:11 PM, Vladimir Borodin wrote:
05 янв. 2015 г., в 18:15, Vladimir Borodin r...@simply.name написал(а):
Hi all.
I have a simple script for planned switchover of PostgreSQL
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
I am mistaken on one detail here - blocks 2 and 9 are actually fully
identical. I still have no idea why, though.
So, I've looked at it in more detail and it appears that the page of
block 2 split at some point, thereby
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com
wrote:
On 01/13/2015 12:11 PM, Vladimir Borodin wrote:
05 янв. 2015 г., в 18:15, Vladimir Borodin r...@simply.name написал(а):
Hi all.
I have a simple script for planned switchover of PostgreSQL (9.3 and
9.4)
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Michael
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 6:52 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
+ seg = dsm_attach(DatumGetInt32(main_arg));
Here, I think
On 01/15/2015 03:23 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
So now the question is: how did that inconsistency arise? It didn't
necessarily arise at the time of the (presumed) split of block 2 to
create 9. It could be that the opaque area was changed by something
else, some time later. I'll investigate more.
Alexander Korotkov wrote:
I'm not sure. On the one hand it's unclear why fillfactor should be
different from 9.4.
On the other hand it's unclear why it should be different from btree.
I propose marking this ready for committer. So, committer can make a final
decision.
OK let's do so then. My
Hi all,
We are getting following error message on doing any action on the table
like(Select or open from pgadmin).
Please suggest.
ERROR: missing chunk number 0 for toast value 54787 in pg_toast_2619
** Error **
ERROR: missing chunk number 0 for toast value 54787 in
On 2015-01-14 09:34:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2015-01-13 22:19:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
A slightly more complicated change could be applied to make sure that
*all* of the CFLAGS forcibly inserted by configure appear before any
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 6:52 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
+ seg = dsm_attach(DatumGetInt32(main_arg));
Here, I think DatumGetUInt32() needs to be used instead of
DatumGetInt32() as the segment
On 2015-01-15 13:21:56 +, Greg Stark wrote:
I must have missed this, how did you some the hint bit problem with
pg_rewind? Last I understood you ran the risk that the server has unlogged
hint bit updates that you wouldn't know to rewind.
wal_log_hints = on
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
On 01/15/2015 03:21 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
I must have missed this, how did you some the hint bit problem with
pg_rewind? Last I understood you ran the risk that the server has unlogged
hint bit updates that you wouldn't know to rewind.
There's a new GUC in 9.4, wal_log_hints, for that. It has
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't think you should be switching queues. The tuples should be
sent to the tuple queue, and errors and notices to the error queue.
To
On 2015-01-15 11:02:43 +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
At 2015-01-14 11:59:08 +0100, and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
+ if (ControlFile-state != DB_SHUTDOWNED
+ ControlFile-state != DB_SHUTDOWNED_IN_RECOVERY)
+ perform_fsync(data_directory);
+
a) Please think of a
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
However, there is a larger practical problem with this whole concept,
which is that experience should teach us to be very
On 2015-01-15 08:40:34 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I do think that safe is the wrong suffix. Maybe palloc_soft_fail()
or palloc_null() or palloc_no_oom() or palloc_unsafe().
palloc_or_null()?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 01/15/2015 03:23 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
So now the question is: how did that inconsistency arise? It didn't
necessarily arise at the time of the (presumed) split of block 2 to
create 9. It could be that
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
+HandleParallelMessages(void)
+{
..
..
+ for (i = 0; i pcxt-nworkers; ++i)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Read messages for as long as we have an
and...@anarazel.de (Andres Freund) writes:
On 2015-01-14 19:31:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Right now I think a #ifdef/undef S_UNLOCK in the relevant gcc section
sufficient and acceptable. It's after all the HPPA section that doesn't
really play by
Hi,
The plot thickens! I looped the test, still stock 9.4 as of this time
and went to lunch. When I came back, the database was in recovery
mode. Here is the rough sequence of events.
Whoa. That looks scary. Did you see (some of) those errors before? Most
of them should have been emitted
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 04:48:53PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
What I'm seeing now is that the unaccent regression tests when run under
make check-world abort with
FATAL: postmaster became multithreaded during startup
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
FWIW, if we moved the
CFLAGS=$CFLAGS $user_CFLAGS
further down, it'd have advantage that compiling with -Werror would be
more realistic. Right now doing so breaks about half of the feature
checking configure checks because of warnings. E.g. on my
On 2015-01-15 09:25:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
FWIW, if we moved the
CFLAGS=$CFLAGS $user_CFLAGS
further down, it'd have advantage that compiling with -Werror would be
more realistic. Right now doing so breaks about half of the feature
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Sawada Masahiko sawada.m...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
One thought I have in this line is that currently there doesn't seem to
be
a way to know if the setting has an entry both in
Hi,
Here's a patch that does:
* For each new index tuple inserted, *numSummarized (if not NULL) is
- * incremented; for each existing tuple, numExisting (if not NULL) is
+ * incremented; for each existing tuple, *numExisting (if not NULL) is
* incremented.
*/
Thanks,
Amit
diff --git
Hello,
I think I should finilize my commitfest item for this issue, with
.. Rejected?
Fine with me.
done.
0001: Replace walsender's latch with the general shared latch.
New patch that removes ImmediateInteruptOK behaviour from
walsender. I
think that's a
70 matches
Mail list logo
