Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 2015-10-14 17:46:25 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: > On 10/14/2015 05:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Then your argument about the CF process doesn't seem to make sense. > Why? I ask again, what do you mean by "separate process"? Not going through the CF and normal release process. > either it's

Re: [HACKERS] Allow ssl_renegotiation_limit in PG 9.5

On 2015-10-14 18:53:14 +0300, Shay Rojansky wrote: > However, the new situation where some versions of PG allow this parameter > while others bomb when seeing it. Specifically, Npgsql sends > ssl_renegotiation_limit=0 in the startup packet to completely disable > renegotiation. At this early stage

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/14/2015 05:55 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-10-14 17:46:25 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: >> On 10/14/2015 05:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >>> Then your argument about the CF process doesn't seem to make sense. > >> Why? I ask again, what do you mean by "separate process"? > > Not going

[HACKERS] Allow ssl_renegotiation_limit in PG 9.5

Hi hackers. I noticed ssl_renegotiation_limit has been removed in PostgreSQL 9.5, good riddance... However, the new situation where some versions of PG allow this parameter while others bomb when seeing it. Specifically, Npgsql sends ssl_renegotiation_limit=0 in the startup packet to completely

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/14/2015 05:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-10-14 16:50:41 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: >>> I don't think we as a community want to do that without review >>> mechanisms in place, and I personally don't think we want to add >>> separate processes for this. >>> >> >> That's what "contribute"

[HACKERS] OS X El Capitan and DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH

The new OS X release 10.11 "El Capitan" has a "security" feature that prevents passing DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH to child processes. Somehow, that variable is stripped from the environment. Consequently, the current in-tree "make check" test setup will no longer work, because programs such as initdb and

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 2015-10-14 16:50:41 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: > > I don't think we as a community want to do that without review > > mechanisms in place, and I personally don't think we want to add > > separate processes for this. > > > > That's what "contribute" means in my book. Then your argument about

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

Amir Rohan wrote: > it does fail the "dependent options" test: > $ postgres -C "archive_mode" > on > $ postgres -C wal_level > minimal > > no errors, great, let's try it: > $ pg_ctl restart > > FATAL: WAL archival cannot be enabled when wal_level is "minimal" This complaint could be fixed we

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On October 14, 2015 7:45:53 PM GMT+02:00, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >Amir Rohan wrote: > >> it does fail the "dependent options" test: >> $ postgres -C "archive_mode" >> on >> $ postgres -C wal_level >> minimal >> >> no errors, great, let's try it: >> $ pg_ctl restart >>

Re: [HACKERS] Allow ssl_renegotiation_limit in PG 9.5

Just to give some added reasoning... As Andres suggested, Npgsql sends ssl_renegotiation_limit=0 because we've seen renegotiation bugs with the standard .NET SSL implementation (which Npgsql uses). Seems like everyone has a difficult time with renegotiation. As Tom suggested, it gets sent in the

Re: [HACKERS] Can extension build own SGML document?

On 9/15/15 10:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Jim Nasby writes: On 9/15/15 8:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote: AFAICT from a quick look at its documentation, asciidoc can produce either html or docbook output; so as soon as you want something other than html output (in particular, PDF),

Re: [HACKERS] Allow ssl_renegotiation_limit in PG 9.5

On 2015-10-14 14:19:40 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I think we could continue to have the parameter except that it throws an > error if you try to set it to something other than 0. That'll make it hard to ever remove it tho. Not sure if it's worth doing so for a dubious use of the variable.

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

IOn 10/14/2015 08:45 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Amir Rohan wrote: > >> it does fail the "dependent options" test: >> $ postgres -C "archive_mode" >> on >> $ postgres -C wal_level >> minimal >> >> no errors, great, let's try it: >> $ pg_ctl restart >> >> FATAL: WAL archival cannot be enabled

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:45 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > Attached is rebased patch for partial seqscan support. > > Review comments: > > > - I continue to think GetParallelShmToc is the wrong

Re: [HACKERS] Allow ssl_renegotiation_limit in PG 9.5

On 2015-10-14 13:04:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > It doesn't seem to me that a connector such as npgsql has any business > whatsoever fooling with such a parameter, unconditionally or otherwise. I think in npgsql simply doesn't support renegotiation (IIRC because it'd have been hard to implement in

Re: [HACKERS] Can extension build own SGML document?

Christopher Browne wrote: > There would be some merit to some remapping to transform "creaky old > DocBook 4.2" (what we're using) to a newer version, perhaps biased towards > XML, and have our toolset merge the bits into a big XML (in DocBook 5, > presumably) file for processing using more

Re: [HACKERS] Can extension build own SGML document?

On 14 October 2015 at 13:04, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 9/15/15 10:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Jim Nasby writes: >> >>> On 9/15/15 8:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> AFAICT from a quick look at its documentation, asciidoc can produce either

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT ... ON CONFLICT documentation clean-up patch

On 2015-10-11 17:54:24 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > + > + > + INSERT statements with ON > + CONFLICT clauses do not work sensibly with the partitioning > + schemes shown here, since trigger functions are not currently > + capable of examining the structure of the

Re: [HACKERS] Allow ssl_renegotiation_limit in PG 9.5

Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-10-14 13:04:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > It doesn't seem to me that a connector such as npgsql has any business > > whatsoever fooling with such a parameter, unconditionally or otherwise. > > I think in npgsql simply doesn't support renegotiation (IIRC because >

Re: [HACKERS] Allow ssl_renegotiation_limit in PG 9.5

Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-10-14 14:19:40 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > I think we could continue to have the parameter except that it throws an > > error if you try to set it to something other than 0. > > That'll make it hard to ever remove it tho. Well, we just have to wait until 9.4

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:10 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > AFAICS, no updated version for remote tables are obtained. You're right, but that's OK: the previously-obtained tuples fail to meet the current version of the quals, so there's no problem (that I can

Re: [HACKERS] Allow ssl_renegotiation_limit in PG 9.5

Andres Freund writes: > On 2015-10-14 18:53:14 +0300, Shay Rojansky wrote: >> However, the new situation where some versions of PG allow this parameter >> while others bomb when seeing it. Specifically, Npgsql sends >> ssl_renegotiation_limit=0 in the startup packet to

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Cause TestLib.pm to define $windows_os in all branches.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > In general I think we can be a good deal more liberal about backpatching the > testing regime than we are with production code, where we are always > cautious, and the caution has paid big dividends in our reputation for > stability.

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

Hello, At Fri, 9 Oct 2015 18:40:32 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote in <56178b90.4030...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > > What do you think the right behavior? # 'is' was omitted.. > IIUC, I think that the foreign scan's slot should be set empty, that Even for the case,

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: index-only scans with partial indexes

Hello, At Fri, 09 Oct 2015 16:32:31 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote in <5617cfff.10...@2ndquadrant.com> > Hello, > > On 10/09/2015 02:59 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > >>> The cause of this seeming mismatch would be the place to hold > >>> indexrinfos. It is determined

Re: [HACKERS] Dangling Client Backend Process

At Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:08:37 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote in > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Rajeev rastogi > wrote: > > If we add the event WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH also,

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

On 2015/10/14 12:07, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: >> On 2015/10/07 15:39, Etsuro Fujita wrote: >> I noticed that the approach using a column to populate the foreign >> scan's slot directly wouldn't work well in some cases. For example, >> consider: >> >> SELECT * FROM verysmall v LEFT JOIN (bigft1 JOIN

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

Hello, At Wed, 14 Oct 2015 03:07:31 +, Kouhei Kaigai wrote in <9a28c8860f777e439aa12e8aea7694f801157...@bpxm15gp.gisp.nec.co.jp> > > I noticed that the approach using a column to populate the foreign > > scan's slot directly wouldn't work well in some cases. For

Re: [HACKERS] Database schema diff

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Michal Novotny < michal.novo...@trustport.com> wrote: > Hi guys, > > I would like to ask you whether is there any tool to be able to compare > database schemas ideally no matter what the column order is or to dump > database table with ascending order of all

[HACKERS] Typo in replorigin_sesssion_origin (9.5+)

Hi all Before 9.5 goes final, lets change replorigin_sesssion_origin and replorigin_sesssion_origin_lsn to remove the extra 's'. Yes, it's trivial. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services From

Re: [HACKERS] Database schema diff

Few years ago I developed a tool called fsgateway ( https://github.com/mk8/fsgateway) that show metadata (table, index, sequences, view) as normal files using fuse. In this way to yout can get differences between running db instance using diff, meld or what do you prefear. Unfortunally at the

Re: [HACKERS] Use pg_rewind when target timeline was switched

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> The refactoring of getTimelineHistory as you propose looks like a good > >> idea to me, I

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

On 2015/10/10 10:17, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: The best plan is presumably something like this as you said before: LockRows -> Nested Loop -> Seq Scan on verysmall v -> Foreign Scan on bigft1 and bigft2

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > > It would be good even if there are some restriction such as the > > nesting level, the group setting. > > The another new approach that I came up

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - allow backslash-continuations in custom scripts

Hello, Here is a review, sorry for the delay... This is done as the additional fourth patch, not merged into previous ones, to show what's changed in the manner of command storing. [...] - SQL multi-statement. SELECT 1; SELECT 2; I think this is really "SELECT 1\; SELECT 2;" I join a

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

Ah.. I understood that what you mentioned is the lack of local recheck of foreigh tuples. Sorry for the noise. At Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:31:16 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote in <561e12d4.7040...@lab.ntt.co.jp> On 2015/10/10 10:17, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 8,

Re: [HACKERS] Use pg_rewind when target timeline was switched

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > OK, I see your point and you are right. This additional check allows > pg_rewind to switch one timeline back and make the scan of blocks > begin at the real origin of both timelines. I had in mind the case >

Re: [HACKERS] pam auth - add rhost item

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:12 PM, kolo hhmow wrote: > Yes, sorry. I was in hurry when I posted this message. > I dont understand whay in CheckPAMAuth function only PAM_USER item is adding > to pam information before authenticate? > Wheter it would be a problem to set additional

Re: [HACKERS] Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:03 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > it is great +1. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

Re: [HACKERS] pam auth - add rhost item

Yes, but this is very ugly solution, becasue you have to restart postgresql daemon each time you have added a new user. This solution which I propose is give an abbility to dinamicaly manage user accounts without need to restart each time a user account entry has change. When you have lot of

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > Agreed. > > As KaiGai-san also pointed out before, I think we should address this in > each of the following cases: > > 1) remote qual (scanrelid>0) > 2) remote join (scanrelid==0) > > As for #1, I noticed that

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] DIAGNOSTICS = SKIPPED_ROW_COUNT

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:37 PM, dinesh kumar wrote: > In an existing wait policies like WAIT(default) and NO WAIT, > one can be sure to determine(Using ROW_COUNT daignostics counter), > how many required tuples he processed in a transaction. > But this is not case when

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] DIAGNOSTICS = SKIPPED_ROW_COUNT

Hi Robert, On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:37 PM, dinesh kumar > wrote: > > In an existing wait policies like WAIT(default) and NO WAIT, > > one can be sure to determine(Using ROW_COUNT

Re: [HACKERS] pam auth - add rhost item

Yes, you right - my mistake. But editing pg_hba.conf with lot of entries is little inconveniet. When using pam modules with backend database like postgresql/or whatever is more efficient and convenient - this is whay among others I need pass client ip to pam modules, and then to backend database

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > The patch uses a factor of 1.1 (10% increase) to multiple the startup and > total costs in fpinfo for unsorted data. > > This change has caused the plans for few queries in the test postgres_fdw to > change.

[HACKERS] Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.

On 2015.08.18 at 07:18:50 +0300, Victor Wagner wrote: > Rationale > = > > Since introduction of the WAL-based replication into the PostgreSQL, it is > possible to create high-availability and load-balancing clusters. > > However, there is no support for failover in the client libraries.

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server

PFA the patch with all the comments addressed. On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: > >> - You consider pushing down ORDER BY if any prefix of the query > >>

Re: [HACKERS] Dangling Client Backend Process

On 2015-10-14 17:33:01 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > If I recall correctly, he concerned about killing the backends > running transactions which could be saved. I have a sympathy with > the opinion. I still don't. Leaving backends alive after postmaster has died prevents the auto-restart

Re: [HACKERS] remaining open items

On 2015-10-13 21:57:15 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > - Refactoring speculative insertion with unique indexes a little. > Andres seems to think this shouldn't be an open issue, while Peter > thinks maybe it should be, or at least that's my imperfect executive > summary. Heikki isn't sure he agrees

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 2015-10-14 01:54:46 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: > Andres, please see upthread for quite a bit on what it doesn't do, and > why having it in the server is both an advantages and a shortcoming. As far as I have skimmed the thread it's only talking about shortcoming in case it requires a running

Re: [HACKERS] Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

Reply to multiple member. > Hm. This is not much helpful in the case we especially mentioned > upthread at some point with 2 data centers, first one has the master > and a sync standby, and second one has a set of standbys. We need to > be sure that the standby in DC1 acknowledges all the time,

Re: [HACKERS] More work on SortSupport for text - strcoll() and strxfrm() caching

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I wonder if it wouldn't be better to just add a separate Boolean > indicating exactly the thing we care about. This doesn't seem > particularly easy to understand and verify. I'm not really sure that that's an

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] DIAGNOSTICS = SKIPPED_ROW_COUNT

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:28 PM, dinesh kumar wrote: > I see this feature as an add on to do the parallel DML operations. > There won't be any problem, if operations are mutually exclusive. > I mean, each session operates on unique set of tuples. > > In the above case, we

Re: [HACKERS] pam auth - add rhost item

On 14-10-2015 17:35, kolo hhmow wrote: Yes, but this is very ugly solution, becasue you have to restart postgresql daemon each time you have added a new user. > Restart != Reload. You can even do it using SQL. This solution which I propose is give an abbility to dinamicaly manage user

[HACKERS] Fix unclear comments in tablecmds.c

Came across a couple of unclear comments about functions returning ObjectAddress. Attached fixes them. Thanks, Amit diff --git a/src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c b/src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c index 7668c9d..403582c 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c +++

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Table partition + join pushdown

> -Original Message- > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Taiki Kondo > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 5:28 PM > To: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > Cc: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平); Iwaasa Akio(岩浅 晃郎); > pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org >

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT ... ON CONFLICT documentation clean-up patch

Hi, On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > "do not work sensibly" imo doesn't sound very good in docs. Maybe > something roughly along the lines of "are unlikely to work as expected > as the on conflict action is only taken in case of unique violation on >

Re: [HACKERS] More work on SortSupport for text - strcoll() and strxfrm() caching

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> I'll consider a more comprehensive fix. > > I attach a revised fix that considers the problem of misinterpreting > the contents of the buffers

[HACKERS] A bunch of regular-expression improvements

Some of you probably wondered where the heck the recent flurry of activity around regular expressions (eg, commits 9fe8fe9c9e, b63fc2877) came from. The answer is that it was mostly driven by some fuzz testing that Greg Stark reported to the PG security list: he found various random regexp

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Victor Wagner wrote: > On 2015.08.18 at 07:18:50 +0300, Victor Wagner wrote: > > > Rationale > > = > > > > Since introduction of the WAL-based replication into the PostgreSQL, it > is > > possible to create high-availability and

[HACKERS] pg_restore cancel TODO

I've added the TODO item: When pg_upgrade -j ... is interrupted (for example, ctrl-C from the keyboard) make it cancel the children processes. The context where this arises is that I want to populate data into a new installation compiled with a patch under review, but immediately get error

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 01:52:21AM +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: > On 10/14/2015 01:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Amir Rohan wrote: > >> On 10/14/2015 12:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >>> Amir Rohan wrote: > >>> > I've been considering that. Reusing the parser would ensure no errors > are

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/14/2015 07:41 PM, David Fetter wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 01:52:21AM +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: >> >> I've considered "vendoring", but it seems like enough code surgery >> be involved to make this very dubious "reuse". The language is simple >> enough that writing a parser from scratch

Re: [HACKERS] Allow ssl_renegotiation_limit in PG 9.5

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2015-10-14 14:19:40 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> I think we could continue to have the parameter except that it throws an >>> error if you try to set it to something other than 0. >> That'll make it hard to ever

Re: [HACKERS] Database schema diff

Hi, thanks a lot for your reply, unfortunately it's not working at all, I run it as: # java -jar apgdiff-2.4.jar But it's stuck on the futex wait so unfortunately it didn't work at all. Thanks for the reply anyway, Michal On 10/14/2015 01:53 PM, Иван Фролков wrote: >> I would like to ask

Re: [HACKERS] Database schema diff

I have to admit I was having the same idea few years ago however I never got to implement it, nevertheless I should mount 2 trees for diff comparison, isn't that correct? I mean to mount as /mnt/dumps/old and

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/14/2015 01:30 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-10-14 01:54:46 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: >> Andres, please see upthread for quite a bit on what it doesn't do, and >> why having it in the server is both an advantages and a shortcoming. > > As far as I have skimmed the thread it's only

Re: [HACKERS] Database schema diff

Hi Christopher, thanks a lot for your suggestion however I need to run against dump files so it's useless for me. Thanks anyway, Michal On 10/13/2015 07:23 PM, Christopher Browne wrote: > On 13 October 2015 at 11:48, Michal Novotny >

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 2015-10-14 16:17:55 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: > it does fail the "dependent options" test: > $ postgres -C "archive_mode" > on > $ postgres -C wal_level > minimal Yea, because that's currently evaluated outside the config mechanism. It'd imo would be good to change that independent of this

Re: [HACKERS] Typo in replorigin_sesssion_origin (9.5+)

Craig Ringer wrote: > Hi all > > Before 9.5 goes final, lets change replorigin_sesssion_origin and > replorigin_sesssion_origin_lsn to remove the extra 's'. Hmm? I already fixed this two weeks ago in

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

> -Original Message- > From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI [mailto:horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp] > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 4:40 PM > To: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平) > Cc: fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; > shigeru.han...@gmail.com; robertmh...@gmail.com > Subject: Re:

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/14/2015 04:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-10-14 16:17:55 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: >> it does fail the "dependent options" test: >> $ postgres -C "archive_mode" >> on >> $ postgres -C wal_level >> minimal > > Yea, because that's currently evaluated outside the config > mechanism. It'd

Re: [HACKERS] More work on SortSupport for text - strcoll() and strxfrm() caching

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > I'll consider a more comprehensive fix. I attach a revised fix that considers the problem of misinterpreting the contents of the buffers in both directions. Thanks -- Peter Geoghegan From

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> - I continue to think GetParallelShmToc is the wrong approach. >> Instead, each time ExecParallelInitializeDSM or >> ExecParallelInitializeDSM calls a nodetype-specific initialized >> function (as described in the

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:46:08AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> plpgsql_param_fetch() assumes that it can detect whether it's being >> called from copyParamList() by checking whether params != >> estate->paramLI. I don't

Re: [HACKERS] Use pg_rewind when target timeline was switched

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Alexander, what do you think about that? I think that we should be >> able to rewind with for example node 2 as target and node 3 as source, >> and vice-versa as per the example

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Seq Scan

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 07:52:15PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:46:08AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> Calls from SerializeParamList() need the same treatment as > >> calls from copyParamList()