-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/24/2015 07:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Joe Conway m...@joeconway.com writes:
Do we care that as of 9.5 pg_controldata output is not 100%
aligned anymore? The culprit is: Current track_commit_timestamp
setting: off Its value is shifted 2
Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
That's the safest way. Sometimes you can decide that a function can not
sanely be called by external code
Joe Conway m...@joeconway.com writes:
On 08/24/2015 07:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Seems to me we could s/Current //g, or s/ setting//g, or both, and
get rid of the problem without adding more whitespace.
I'd agree, except I think not everyone might be happy with that. The
surrounding lines look
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/25/2015 10:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Joe Conway m...@joeconway.com writes:
On 08/24/2015 07:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Seems to me we could s/Current //g, or s/ setting//g, or both,
and get rid of the problem without adding more whitespace.
I'd
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Jim Nasby wrote:
On 8/24/15 9:49 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
3) Non-index access methods reuse both pg_class.relam and pg_am. This
violates relational theory because we store different objects in the
same table.
In my reading of the thread,
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Tomas Vondra tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Hi,
currently partial indexes end up not using index only scans in most cases,
because check_index_only() is overly conservative, as explained in this
comment:
* XXX this is overly conservative for partial
On 8/22/15 2:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
This message seems confusing: label lab1 does exist, it's just not
attached to the right loop. In a larger function that might not be too
obvious, and I can easily imagine somebody wasting some time before
Agreed.
figuring out the cause of his problem.
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com writes:
On 8/22/15 2:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
... Given the way the namespace data
structure works, I am not sure that we can realistically detect at line 8
that there was an instance of lab1 earlier, but perhaps we could word the
Are there any other reasons
I wrote:
Hmm ... what do you think of wording the error as there is no label foo
attached to any block enclosing this statement? That still leaves the
terminology block undefined, but it seems better than any statement
enclosing this statement.
Actually, looking at the plpgsql documentation,
On 08/24/2015 11:26 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Paragon Corporation l...@pcorp.us writes:
Just checking to see if you guys have settled on a date for 9.5.0 release.
No. Considering we don't have a beta out yet, it's not imminent ...
This is the timeline, effectively:
On 2015-08-25 13:54:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com writes:
Once the code has to be rewritten, my argument that it has been working in
the field for a while doesn't really apply anymore.
If rewriting involves adding two one line wrapper functions, I don't see
the
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
So the wording would have to be there is no label foo attached to
any block or loop enclosing this statement. That's a tad verbose,
but at least it's clear ...
This seems good to me, verbosity notwithstanding.
Hearing no
On 8/24/15 9:49 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
2) Non-index access methods reuse pg_class.relam but don't reuse pg_am.
This violates relational theory because single column reference multiple
tables.
3) Non-index access methods reuse both pg_class.relam and pg_am. This
violates relational theory
Jim Nasby wrote:
On 8/24/15 9:49 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
2) Non-index access methods reuse pg_class.relam but don't reuse pg_am.
This violates relational theory because single column reference multiple
tables.
3) Non-index access methods reuse both pg_class.relam and pg_am. This
On 8/24/15 3:04 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
(1) there is no reason to believe that the db name and only the db name
is needed to do another connection; what about port, host, user, etc?
I have to agree - the possibilities is much more than database name - so
one option is not good idea.
Zhaomo,
* Zhaomo Yang (zmp...@gmail.com) wrote:
If no NEW or OLD is used, what happens? Or would you have
to always specify OLD/NEW for UPDATE, and then what about for the other
policies, and the FOR ALL policies?
I should be clearer with references to OLD/NEW. SELECT Predicates cannot
Michael,
* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
-- Default Roles: Stephen, are you planning to work on that for next CF?
Yup!
Thanks!
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 6/19/15 10:52 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Change TAP test framework to not rely on having a chmod executable.
This might not work at all on Windows, and is not ever efficient.
Michael Paquier
I came across this on an unrelated mission and noticed it was
unnecessarily complicated. How about
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/25/2015 12:39 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
-- self-defined policy for sepgsql regression test, returned with
feedback? The regressions are broken as mentioned at the end of
the thread.
I am in the process of getting a VM setup with an
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
[...]
-- Support to COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE: returned with feedback? The
author mentioned that patch will be reworked but there has been no new
version around it seems.
Moved to the next commitfest.
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com writes:
What I've had problems with is trying to correlate psql specified
connection attributes with things like DBI. It would be nice if there
was a way to get a fully formed connection URI for the current connection.
Yeah, although I'd think the
On 8/25/15 10:50 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
figuring out the cause of his problem. Given the way the namespace data
structure works, I am not sure that we can realistically detect at line 8
that there was an instance of lab1 earlier, but perhaps we could word the
Are there any other reasons we'd
Jim Nasby wrote:
On 8/25/15 10:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm good with this as long as all the things that get stored in pg_am
are things that pg_class.relam can legitimately reference. If somebody
proposed adding an access method kind that was not a relation access
method, I'd probably push
On 8/25/15 10:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm good with this as long as all the things that get stored in pg_am
are things that pg_class.relam can legitimately reference. If somebody
proposed adding an access method kind that was not a relation access
method, I'd probably push back on whether that
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com writes:
On 8/25/15 10:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm good with this as long as all the things that get stored in pg_am
are things that pg_class.relam can legitimately reference. If somebody
proposed adding an access method kind that was not a relation access
Tom Lane wrote:
So the wording would have to be there is no label foo attached to
any block or loop enclosing this statement. That's a tad verbose,
but at least it's clear ...
This seems good to me, verbosity notwithstanding.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On July 9, 2015 9:13:20 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com
wrote:
Unfortunately I don't know what that means about the API.
On 08/25/2015 10:39 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote:
Hello Hackers,
There are a few Needs Review items remaining in the July commitfest.
Reviewers, please take action - you are holding up the commitfest.
In addition to these
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com writes:
I am wondering that is there any harm in calling TransactionIdDidAbort()
in slow path before calling SubTransGetTopmostTransaction(), that can
also maintain consistency of
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
[...]
So I think the way to move this forward is to investigate how to hold
the SSL config constant until SIGHUP in an EXEC_BACKEND build. If we
find out that that's unreasonably difficult, maybe we'll decide that
we can
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
[...]
So I think the way to move this forward is to investigate how to hold
the SSL config constant until SIGHUP in an EXEC_BACKEND build. If
On 2015/08/25 10:18, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
How about your opinion towards the solution?
Likely, what you need to do are...
1. Save the alternative path on fdw_paths when foreign join push-down.
GetForeignJoinPaths() may be called multiple times towards a particular
joinrel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/24/2015 08:52 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
On 08/24/2015 06:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 08/23/2015 08:58 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
I think that's a good thing to have, now I have concerns
about making this
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Andreas Karlsson andr...@proxel.se wrote:
On 08/25/2015 09:39 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
-- Reload SSL certificates on SIGHUP: returned with feedback? I think
that this patch needs more work to be in a commitable state.
Maybe I am being dense here, but I do
Hi KaiGai-san,
On 2015/08/25 10:18, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
How about your opinion towards the solution?
Likely, what you need to do are...
1. Save the alternative path on fdw_paths when foreign join push-down.
GetForeignJoinPaths() may be called multiple times towards a particular
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote:
Hello Hackers,
There are a few Needs Review items remaining in the July commitfest.
Reviewers, please take action - you are holding up the commitfest.
In addition to these items, there are a bunch of items in Ready
On 12 August 2015 at 04:49, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 11 August 2015 at 14:53, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
One more point here why do we need CommitLock before calling
On 22 August 2015 at 15:14, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-06-30 08:02:25 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
Proposal for improving this is to acquire the ClogControlLock in Shared
mode, if possible.
I find that rather scary. That requires for all read and write paths in
clog.c
-- merging pgbench logs: returned with feedback or bump? Fabien has
concerns about performance regarding fprintf when merging the logs.
Fabien, Tomas, thoughts?
-- pgbench - per-transaction and aggregated logs: returned with
feedback or bump to next CF? Fabien, Tomas, thoughts?
I think that
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On 2015-08-25 14:12:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
How would they have done that without major code surgery? We don't have
any hooks or function pointers involved in the users of resowner.h.
Certainly locks would not be getting passed to a nonstandard
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On 2015-08-25 13:54:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
However, I'm not entirely following Andres' concern here. AFAICS,
the only externally visible API change in commit eeb6f37d8 was that
LockReleaseCurrentOwner and LockReassignCurrentOwner gained some
(sending again, forgot to cc hackers, sorry for the duplicate)
Hi,
I'm trying to use the custom scan API to replace code that currently
does everything via hooks and isn't safe against copyObject() (Yes,
that's not a grand plan).
To me dealing with CustomScan-custom_private seems to be
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
Since we already have CustomScan-methods, it seems to be rather
reasonable to have a CopyCustomScan callback and let it do the copying
of the private data if present? Or possibly of the whole node, which'd
allow to embed it into a bigger node?
Weren't
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On 2015-08-25 14:33:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
(IOW, yeah, certainly third-party code could create a new *instance* of
the ResourceOwner data structure, but they would not have any knowledge of
what's inside unless they had hacked the core code.)
What
On 2015-08-25 14:12:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
How would they have done that without major code surgery? We don't have
any hooks or function pointers involved in the users of resowner.h.
Certainly locks would not be getting passed to a nonstandard resowner.
CurrentResourceOwner = myresowner;
Joe Conway wrote:
Does anyone out there object to a non-backward compatible change to
pg_controldata output?
I don't (and thanks for taking care of it), but as I recall, pg_upgrade
reads and interprets pg_controldata output so it may need adjustment
too.
--
Álvaro Herrera
On 2015-08-25 14:33:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
(IOW, yeah, certainly third-party code could create a new *instance* of
the ResourceOwner data structure, but they would not have any knowledge of
what's inside unless they had hacked the core code.)
What I was thinking is that somebody created a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/25/2015 10:32 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
On 08/25/2015 10:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I was suggesting getting rid of Current in *all* the entries.
What value does it add?
I agree, it adds no value, and is a simple solution.
Does anyone out
Hi,
From the Debian ports buildd:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=postgresql-9.4arch=alphaver=9.4.4-1stamp=1434132509
make[5]: Entering directory '/«PKGBUILDDIR»/build/src/backend/postmaster'
[...]
gcc -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Wdeclaration-after-statement
On 24 August 2015 at 19:15, Paragon Corporation l...@pcorp.us wrote:
Just checking to see if you guys have settled on a date for 9.5.0 release.
The PostGIS Dev team would like to release PostGIS 2.2 about or a week or
more before, but not too far ahead of 9.5.0 release.
It's a good
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
In the 4 years that that particular line has been there, not once had
anyone else run into it on Gentoo until a couple months ago.
And it isn't a case of end users missing it as we have arch testers
Vignesh Raghunathan vignesh.pg...@gmail.com writes:
Can the t_len field in HeapTuple structure be used to verify the length of
the tuple?
That is, if I calculate the length from the contents of the tuple using
data from pg_attribute for fixed length fields and the data from the header
for
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Well, strictly speaking, there were no uses of pg_read_barrier until 9.4.
However, pg_write_barrier (which used wmb) was in use since 9.2; so
unless you're claiming your assembler knows wmb but not rmb, the code's
failed to
This works:
CREATE TYPE c AS (r float, i float);
CREATE FUNCTION mag(c c) RETURNS float LANGUAGE sql AS $$
SELECT sqrt(c.r^2 + c.i^2)
$$;
SELECT mag( (2.2, 2.2) );
mag
--
3.11126983722081
But this doesn't:
CREATE FUNCTION magsum( c c[] ) RETURNS float LANGUAGE sql AS $$
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Vignesh Raghunathan vignesh.pg...@gmail.com writes:
Can the t_len field in HeapTuple structure be used to verify the length
of
the tuple?
That is, if I calculate the length from the contents of the tuple using
data
Vignesh Raghunathan vignesh.pg...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
If t_len were *less* than that, it would be a bug. But I think it's
fairly common for t_len to be rounded up to the next maxalign boundary.
I have modified
On 2015-08-25 14:42:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
Since we already have CustomScan-methods, it seems to be rather
reasonable to have a CopyCustomScan callback and let it do the copying
of the private data if present? Or possibly of the whole node,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/25/2015 11:28 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Joe Conway wrote:
Does anyone out there object to a non-backward compatible change
to pg_controldata output?
I don't (and thanks for taking care of it), but as I recall,
pg_upgrade reads and
All,
The second approach above works.
I defined a own privileged domain (sepgsql_regtest_superuser_t)
instead of system's unconfined_t domain.
The reason why regression test gets failed was, definition of
unconfined_t in the system default policy was changed to bypass
multi-category rules;
So what about the buildfarm animal that was offered for this? We still
have this module completely uncovered in the buildfarm ...
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
* Adam Brightwell (adam.brightw...@crunchydatasolutions.com) wrote:
So what about the buildfarm animal that was offered for this? We still
have this module completely uncovered in the buildfarm ...
I believe that is in the works and should be made available soon.
Right, Joe commented on
So what about the buildfarm animal that was offered for this? We still
have this module completely uncovered in the buildfarm ...
I believe that is in the works and should be made available soon.
-Adam
--
Adam Brightwell - adam.brightw...@crunchydatasolutions.com
Database Engineer -
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
In the 4 years that that particular line has been there, not once had
anyone else run into it on Gentoo until a couple months ago.
And it isn't a case of end users missing it as we have arch testers
that test packages
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-08-20 15:38:36 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de
wrote:
I spent some time today reviewing the commited patch. So far my only
major complaint is that
Joe Conway wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I should have gotten my key signed when I had the chance :-(
On 08/25/2015 11:28 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Joe Conway wrote:
Does anyone out there object to a non-backward compatible change
to pg_controldata output?
On 2015-08-25 08:57, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 08/25/2015 08:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-08-25 08:29:18 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
needs a buildfarm animal. If we had one we'd presumably have caught this
much earlier.
On the other hand, we dropped alpha support in 9.5, ...
Oh, I
Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
I've been meaning to report this myself.
In the 4 years that that particular line has been there, not once had
anyone else run into it on Gentoo until a couple months ago.
And it isn't a case of end users missing it as we have arch testers
that test packages
Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:53 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
Another minor point is, I think we should modify function level comment
for XidInMVCCSnapshot() where it
On August 25, 2015 09:31:35 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Other comments:
[...]
This patch had feedback, but there has been no update in the last
month, so I am now marking it as returned with feedback.
It was suggested that this
Jan de Visser j...@de-visser.net writes:
On August 25, 2015 09:31:35 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
This patch had feedback, but there has been no update in the last
month, so I am now marking it as returned with feedback.
It was suggested that this mechanism became superfluous with the inclusion
On 2015-08-25 14:42:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
Since we already have CustomScan-methods, it seems to be rather
reasonable to have a CopyCustomScan callback and let it do the copying
of the private data if present? Or possibly of the whole node,
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Teodor Sigaev teo...@sigaev.ru wrote:
Poorly, by hanging boxes that straddled dividing lines off the parent
node in a big linear list. The hope would be that the case was
Ok, I see, but that's not really what I was wondering. My question is
this:
SP-GiST
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 6:06 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 05/08/2015 07:35 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
In consideration of the fact that you can't create schemas which start
with pg_ and therefore the default search_path wouldn't work for that
user, and that we also reserve pg_ for
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On 2015-08-25 14:42:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
In any case, since this convention already exists for FDWs I'm not
sure why we should make it different for CustomScan.
I think it was a noticeable mistake in the fdw case, but we already
released with
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
This works:
CREATE TYPE c AS (r float, i float);
CREATE FUNCTION mag(c c) RETURNS float LANGUAGE sql AS $$
SELECT sqrt(c.r^2 + c.i^2)
$$;
SELECT mag( (2.2, 2.2) );
mag
--
3.11126983722081
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com writes:
This works:
CREATE TYPE c AS (r float, i float);
CREATE FUNCTION mag(c c) RETURNS float LANGUAGE sql AS $$
SELECT sqrt(c.r^2 + c.i^2)
$$;
SELECT mag( (2.2, 2.2) );
mag
--
3.11126983722081
But this doesn't:
CREATE
You mean even if relacl is not null? Sounds improbable: AFAIR, pg_class
tuples are built with heap_form_tuple, same as anything else.
regards, tom lane
I am sorry. It was a bug in my code. I did not add the size of the tuple's
header field to the off variable before
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Michael,
* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
-- Default Roles: Stephen, are you planning to work on that for next CF?
Yup!
OK. Fine for me. I have moved the patch to next CF, even if I
mentioned
Tom Lane wrote:
Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com writes:
I am wondering that is there any harm in calling TransactionIdDidAbort()
in slow path before calling SubTransGetTopmostTransaction(), that can
also maintain consistency of checks in both the functions?
I think this is probably
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/25/2015 01:02 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Adam Brightwell (adam.brightw...@crunchydatasolutions.com)
wrote:
So what about the buildfarm animal that was offered for this?
We still have this module completely uncovered in the buildfarm
...
Hello,
Can the t_len field in HeapTuple structure be used to verify the length of
the tuple?
That is, if I calculate the length from the contents of the tuple using
data from pg_attribute for fixed length fields and the data from the header
for varlena fields, should it always match the value
On 2015-08-25 15:43:12 -0400, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
As for the dropped support, has the Alpha specific code been ripped
out? Would it still presumably run on Alpha?
I'm pretty sure that postgres hasn't run correctly under concurrency on
alpha for a long while. The lax cache coherency makes
On 08/25/2015 06:16 AM, Christoph Berg wrote:
Hi,
From the Debian ports buildd:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=postgresql-9.4arch=alphaver=9.4.4-1stamp=1434132509
make[5]: Entering directory '/«PKGBUILDDIR»/build/src/backend/postmaster'
[...]
gcc -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Other comments:
[...]
This patch had feedback, but there has been no update in the last
month, so I am now marking it as returned with feedback.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Mikko Tiihonen wrote:
Because the feature as its simplest is a for loop in libpq. I would not think
it much of a feature creep, especially since my original patch to libpq
showed the loop already has been hidden in libpq for a long time, it just
needed a
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr wrote:
-- merging pgbench logs: returned with feedback or bump? Fabien has
concerns about performance regarding fprintf when merging the logs.
Fabien, Tomas, thoughts?
-- pgbench - per-transaction and aggregated logs: returned
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
Yes, we definitely want to see the effect on TPS at the beginning of
checkpoint,
but even measuring the IO during checkpoint with the way Digoal was
capturing
the data can show the effect of this patch.
I am marking this patch as returned
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
I have this idea:
1) Add an ObjectAddress field to CommentStmt struct an set it in gram.y
2) In the CommentObject check if CommentStmt-address is
InvalidObjectAddress then call
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 08/25/2015 10:39 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
- 12 patches are waiting on author:
These can all be marked as Returned with good conscience, they've gotten at
least some feedback.
Fine for me. I'll notify each thread individually and
On 2015-08-25 08:29:18 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
needs a buildfarm animal. If we had one we'd presumably have caught this
much earlier.
On the other hand, we dropped alpha support in 9.5, ...
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Tomas Vondra
tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
[series of arguments]
If you need stats without these issues you'll have to use MCV list or a
histogram. Trying to fix the simple statistics types is futile, IMHO.
Patch is marked as returned with feedback.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 7 July 2015 at 21:37, Julien Rouhaud julien.rouh...@dalibo.com wrote:
Well, I obviously missed that pg_srand48() is only used if the system
lacks random/srandom, sorry for the noise. So yes, random() must be
used
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On July 9, 2015 9:13:20 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately I don't know what that means about the API. Does it mean
that none of the functions declared in any .h file can have their
On 08/25/2015 08:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-08-25 08:29:18 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
needs a buildfarm animal. If we had one we'd presumably have caught this
much earlier.
On the other hand, we dropped alpha support in 9.5, ...
Oh, I missed that. Sorry for the noise.
cheers
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-07-24 09:53:49 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
To me it sounds like this shouldn't go through the full ReadBuffer()
rigamarole. That code is already complex enough, and here it's really
not needed. I think it'll be much easier to
Hi,
On 08/25/2015 02:44 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr wrote:
-- merging pgbench logs: returned with feedback or bump? Fabien has
concerns about performance regarding fprintf when merging the logs.
Fabien, Tomas, thoughts?
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/25/2015 02:27 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
On 08/25/2015 01:02 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Adam Brightwell (adam.brightw...@crunchydatasolutions.com)
wrote:
So what about the buildfarm animal that was offered for
this? We still have this module
On 08/25/2015 09:39 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
-- Reload SSL certificates on SIGHUP: returned with feedback? I think
that this patch needs more work to be in a commitable state.
Maybe I am being dense here, but I do not feel like I have gotten any
clear feedback which gives me a way forward
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/25/2015 12:41 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Joe Conway wrote:
On 08/25/2015 11:28 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Joe Conway wrote:
Does anyone out there object to a non-backward compatible
change to pg_controldata output?
I don't (and thanks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/25/2015 06:03 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
I'm arriving late to this party, so maybe everyone else already
knows this, but apparently sepgsql is not compatible with the
version of selinux available on RHEL 6.x. So there doesn't seem to
be much
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
