[HACKERS] psql --help=variables lists variables that can't be set

psql --help=variables shows variables treated specially by psql. And it tells you Usage: psql --set=NAME=VALUE or \set NAME VALUE But some of the variables listed cannot usefully be set, only read, such as DBNAME the currently connected database name HOST the

Re: [HACKERS] Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> I didn't push the changed for config_default you requested a few >> messages upthread; it's not clear to me how setting it to undef affects >> the whole

Re: [HACKERS] broken tests

2015-12-03 22:50 GMT+01:00 Pavel Raiskup : > On Thursday 03 of December 2015 20:49:09 Pavel Stehule wrote: > > 2015-12-03 12:39 GMT+01:00 Pavel Raiskup : > > > > > On Wednesday 02 of December 2015 20:26:56 Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > > 2015-12-02 20:08

Re: [HACKERS] Confusing results with lateral references

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2015/12/03 21:26, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > > Session 1 > > postgres=# begin; > > BEGIN > > postgres=# update t1 set val = 2 where val2 = 1; > > UPDATE 1 > > > > Session 2 > > postgres=# select * from t1 left

Re: [HACKERS] pg_hba_lookup function to get all matching pg_hba.conf entries

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > this tracing can be implemented to main pg_hba processing. When you are > connect from some specific client - and you can see, why you cannot to > connect to Postgres The trace messages that are going to print

Re: [HACKERS] psql --help=variables lists variables that can't be set

2015-12-04 4:08 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut : > psql --help=variables shows variables treated specially by psql. And it > tells you > > Usage: > psql --set=NAME=VALUE > or \set NAME VALUE > > But some of the variables listed cannot usefully be set, only read, such as > >

Re: [HACKERS] Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 02:47:36PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 04:33:50PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> How did you figure > >> that that was the version used, anyway? > > > > I asked Bruce at

Re: [HACKERS] Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 04:33:50PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> How did you figure >> that that was the version used, anyway? > > I asked Bruce at one point. So we are trying to use the same version over the years to keep

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] overflow checks optimized away

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 1:27 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-12-03 12:10:27 +, Greg Stark wrote: >> I'm leaning towards using the builtin functions described here > > For performance reasons? Michael's version of the patch had the > necessary 'raw' macros, and they don't

Re: [HACKERS] broken tests

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2015-12-03 22:50 GMT+01:00 Pavel Raiskup : >> Sorry if that looked like this :(. I just wanted to point out that this >> is not "just" about Fedora --> but either libxml2 (upstream) needs to be

Re: [HACKERS] Confusing results with lateral references

On 2015/12/03 21:26, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Session 1 > postgres=# begin; > BEGIN > postgres=# update t1 set val = 2 where val2 = 1; > UPDATE 1 > > Session 2 > postgres=# select * from t1 left join t2 on (t1.val = t2.val) for update of > t1; > > query waits > > Session 1 > postgres=# commit; >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_hba_lookup function to get all matching pg_hba.conf entries

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> >> Here I attached the patch with the suggested changes. >> >> Along with line number, I kept the options column also with authentication >> >> options as a jsonb datatype. >> >> >> >> Example output: >> >> >> >>

Re: [HACKERS] Passing initially_valid values instead of !skip_validation to StoreRelCheck() in AddRelationNewConstraints()

let me put it in other words, is there any harm use of initially_valid instead of !skip_validation? Earlier to commit I mentioned in my first post, there is only one flag, IMO i.e. skip_validation, which are serving both purpose, setting pg_constraint.convalidated & decide to skip or validate

Re: [HACKERS] pg_hba_lookup function to get all matching pg_hba.conf entries

2015-12-04 5:48 GMT+01:00 Haribabu Kommi : > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > > > > > this tracing can be implemented to main pg_hba processing. When you are > > connect from some specific client - and you can see, why

Re: [HACKERS] pg_hba_lookup function to get all matching pg_hba.conf entries

2015-12-04 5:33 GMT+01:00 Haribabu Kommi : > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > >> >> Here I attached the patch with the suggested changes. > >> >> Along with line number, I kept the options column also with >

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On 2015/12/04 11:51, Noah Misch wrote: On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:05:47AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: * Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual Is this fixed by 5fc4c26db? If not, what remains to do? Unfortunately, no.

Re: [HACKERS] psql --help=variables lists variables that can't be set

On 2015-12-03 22:08:31 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > psql --help=variables shows variables treated specially by psql. And it > tells you > > Usage: > psql --set=NAME=VALUE > or \set NAME VALUE > > But some of the variables listed cannot usefully be set, only read, such as > > DBNAME

Re: [HACKERS] Passing initially_valid values instead of !skip_validation to StoreRelCheck() in AddRelationNewConstraints()

Hi Amit, Thanks for prompt response. >On Thursday, 3 December 2015 4:36 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: >Especially from a readability standpoint, I think using skip_validation may be >more apt. >Why - the corresponding parameter of StoreRelCheck() dictates what's

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication and multimaster

On 30 November 2015 at 17:20, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > But looks like there is not so much sense in having multiple network > connection between one pair of nodes. > It seems to be better to have one connection between nodes, but provide > parallel execution of

Re: [HACKERS] Confusing results with lateral references

There's another seemingly wrong result, not with lateral, but with FOR UPDATE. postgres=# select * from t1; val | val2 -+-- 1 |1 (1 row) postgres=# select * from t2; val | val2 -+-- 1 |1 2 |2 1 |1 (3 rows) Session 1 postgres=# begin; BEGIN

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication and multimaster

On Dec 3, 2015, at 10:34 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 3 December 2015 at 14:54, konstantin knizhnik > wrote: > >> I'd really like to collaborate using pglogical_output if at all possible. >> Petr's working really hard to get the pglogical downstrem out too, with me

Re: [HACKERS] Passing initially_valid values instead of !skip_validation to StoreRelCheck() in AddRelationNewConstraints()

On 12/3/15 12:44 PM, amul sul wrote: On Thursday, 3 December 2015 4:36 PM, Amit Langote wrote: The user will have to separately validate the constraint by issuing a ALTER TABLE VALIDATE CONSTRAINT command at a time of their choosing. This could be time

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication and multimaster

On 3 December 2015 at 12:06, konstantin knizhnik wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2015, at 10:34 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > > On 3 December 2015 at 14:54, konstantin knizhnik < > k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > >> >> I'd really like to collaborate using pglogical_output if at

Re: [HACKERS] broken tests

On Wednesday 02 of December 2015 20:26:56 Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2015-12-02 20:08 GMT+01:00 Alvaro Herrera : > > > Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > Today I have problem with regress tests on my laptop. > > > > Maybe this is because of the libxml version? > >

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] overflow checks optimized away

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Greg Stark wrote: > Sorry, I didn't look at it since. At the time I was using Xi Wang's software > to find the overflow checks that need to be redone. He published a paper on > it and it's actually pretty impressive. It constructs a constraint

Re: [HACKERS] Passing initially_valid values instead of !skip_validation to StoreRelCheck() in AddRelationNewConstraints()

Hi Amul! On 2015/12/03 17:52, amul sul wrote: > Hi ALL, > > Need your suggestions. > initially_valid flag is added to make column constraint valid. (commit : > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e1q2ak9-0006hk...@gemulon.postgresql.org) > > > IFAICU, initially_valid and skip_validation

[HACKERS] Passing initially_valid values instead of !skip_validation to StoreRelCheck() in AddRelationNewConstraints()

Hi ALL, Need your suggestions. initially_valid flag is added to make column constraint valid. (commit : http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e1q2ak9-0006hk...@gemulon.postgresql.org) IFAICU, initially_valid and skip_validation values are mutually exclusive at constraint creation(ref: gram.y),

Re: [HACKERS] Rework the way multixact truncations work

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 04:46:26PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-12-02 09:57:19 -0500, Noah Misch wrote: > > Hackers have been too reticent to revert and redo defect-laden > > commits. If doing that is weird today, let it be normal. > > Why? See my paragraph ending with the two

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.

Hello, At Thu, 3 Dec 2015 16:24:32 +0900, Amit Langote wrote in <565fee30.8010...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > > Agreed. The patch already separates integer values and texts. > > And re-reviewing the patch, there's no fields necessary to be > > passed as string. > > > >

[HACKERS] Confusing results with lateral references

Hi, I am seeing different results with two queries which AFAIU have same semantics and hence are expected to give same results. postgres=# \d t1 Table "public.t1" Column | Type | Modifiers +-+--- val| integer | val2 | integer | postgres=# \d t2

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication and multimaster

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 3 December 2015 at 14:54, konstantin knizhnik < > k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > >> >> Are there some principle problems with it? In BDR it was handled in >> alternative way, using executor callback. It will be

Re: [HACKERS] psql: add \pset true/false

Jim Nasby wrote: > I was more thinking it would be nice to be able to temporarily > over-ride/wrap what an output function is doing. AFAIK that would allow > this to work everywhere (row(), copy, etc). I don't know of any remotely > practical way to do that, though. Yes. Something

[HACKERS] PostgresNode::_update_pid using undefined variables in tap tests

Hi all, While running the test suite this morning I have noticed the following error: server stopped readline() on closed filehandle $pidfile at /Users/ioltas/git/postgres/src/bin/pg_rewind/../../../src/test/perl/PostgresNode.pm line 308. Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string

Re: [HACKERS] Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 04:33:50PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Noah Misch wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:11:21PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Finally, I ran perltidy on all the files, which strangely changed stuff > > > that I didn't expect it to change. I wonder if this is

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication and multimaster

On 3 December 2015 at 19:06, konstantin knizhnik wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2015, at 10:34 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > > On 3 December 2015 at 14:54, konstantin knizhnik < > k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > >> >> I'd really like to collaborate using pglogical_output if at

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication and multimaster

On 3 December 2015 at 20:39, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 30 November 2015 at 17:20, Konstantin Knizhnik < > k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > > >> But looks like there is not so much sense in having multiple network >> connection between one pair of nodes. >> It seems to be

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication and multimaster

On 3 December 2015 at 15:27, konstantin knizhnik wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2015, at 4:18 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > > > Excellent. > > > > It should be possible to make that a separate extension. You can use C > functions from other extensions by exposing a single pg_proc

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] overflow checks optimized away

Greg Stark writes: > What version of GCC and other compilers did we decide we're targeting now? I can't see us moving the compiler goalposts one inch for this. "I'm going to break building on your compiler in order to work around bugs in somebody else's compiler" isn't gonna fly.

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] overflow checks optimized away

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I can't see us moving the compiler goalposts one inch for this. > "I'm going to break building on your compiler in order to work around > bugs in somebody else's compiler" isn't gonna fly. Fwiw the builtins offer a carrot as

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] overflow checks optimized away

Greg Stark writes: > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I can't see us moving the compiler goalposts one inch for this. >> "I'm going to break building on your compiler in order to work around >> bugs in somebody else's compiler" isn't gonna

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] overflow checks optimized away

On 2015-12-03 12:10:27 +, Greg Stark wrote: > I'm leaning towards using the builtin functions described here For performance reasons? Michael's version of the patch had the necessary 'raw' macros, and they don't look *that* bad. Using the __builtin variants when available, would be nice - and

Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] max_worker_processes on the standby

On 2015-11-16 22:43, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I paraphrase Fujii Masao, who wrote: 1. Start the master and standby servers with track_commit_timestamp enabled. 2. Disable track_commit_timestamp in the master and restart the master server. 3. Run checkpoint in the master. 4. Run restartpoint in

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: add 'waiting for replication' to pg_stat_activity.state

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > > On 3 December 2015 at 09:32, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> >> On 12/2/15 7:00 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> > I notice that you don't set the 'waiting' flag. 'waiting' is presently >> > documented as: >> >

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication and multimaster

On 2015-12-03 14:32, Craig Ringer wrote: On 3 December 2015 at 15:27, konstantin knizhnik > wrote: 3. What is the right way of creation of background worker requiring access to shared memory, i.e. having control structure in

Re: Fwd: [HACKERS] Another little thing about psql wrapped expanded output

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:59 PM, David Fetter wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:36:56PM -0500, Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 12/02/2015 05:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> > Don't think I agree. Suppose that you have a wider-than-screen table >> > and you use a pager to scroll left and

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: PL/Pythonu - function ereport

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > I am sorry, I don't understand. Now due inheritance plpy.Fatal and > plpy.SPIError has availability to use keyword parameters. Indeed, I didn't realize this, but I don't think it changes the main argument. What I

Re: [HACKERS] snapshot too old, configured by time

On 2015-12-02 14:48:24 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Steve Singer wrote: > > >> In snapmgr.c > >> > >> > >> + * XXX: If we can trust a read of an int64

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] overflow checks optimized away

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Stark writes: >> What version of GCC and other compilers did we decide we're targeting now? > > I can't see us moving the compiler goalposts one inch for this. That's not the question I asked :/ -- greg

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor Perl test code

Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> BTW, not the fault of this patch in particular, but this example points > >> up the complaint I've had right along about how opaque TAP test failures

Re: [HACKERS] broken tests

2015-12-03 12:39 GMT+01:00 Pavel Raiskup : > On Wednesday 02 of December 2015 20:26:56 Pavel Stehule wrote: > > 2015-12-02 20:08 GMT+01:00 Alvaro Herrera : > > > > > Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > Today I have problem with regress

Re: [HACKERS] Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I didn't push the changes for config_default you requested a few > messages upthread; it's not clear to me how setting it to undef affects > the whole thing. If setting it to undef makes the MSVC toolchain run >

Re: [HACKERS] Error with index on unlogged table

On 2015-11-27 16:59:20 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Attached is a patch that fixes the issue for me in master and 9.5. > Actually in the last patch I forgot a call to smgrwrite to ensure that > the INIT_FORKNUM is correctly synced to disk when those pages are > replayed at recovery, letting the

Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] max_worker_processes on the standby

Petr Jelinek wrote: > While this seems good, I'd code it slightly differently. I didn't like the > addition of new bool when it's not really needed. This brings the question > if we actually need the BootStrapCommitTs and StartupCommitTs functions > which really don't do much though. Thanks,

Re: [HACKERS] eXtensible Transaction Manager API

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:48:38PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> > At this time, the number of round trips needed particularly for READ >> > COMMITTED transactions that need a new snapshot for each query was >> > really a

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Refactor Perl test code

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Michael Paquier writes: >>> Well, it showed up on my terminal... >> Not on mine, as per the extract I showed. Probably a Perl version >> difference, but I don't think we can exactly write off RHEL6

[HACKERS] atomic reads & writes (with no barriers)

The "snapshot too old" patch has an XXX comment about being able to drop a spinlock usage from a frequently called "get" method if the 64-bit read could be trusted to be atomic. There is no need for a barrier in this case, because a stale value just means we won't be quite as aggressive about

Re: [HACKERS] pg_hba_lookup function to get all matching pg_hba.conf entries

> >> Here I attached the patch with the suggested changes. > >> Along with line number, I kept the options column also with authentication > >> options as a jsonb datatype. > >> > >> Example output: > >> > >> postgres=# select pg_hba_lookup('test','all','::1'); > >> NOTICE: Skipped 84 Hba line,

Re: [HACKERS] broken tests

On Thursday 03 of December 2015 20:49:09 Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2015-12-03 12:39 GMT+01:00 Pavel Raiskup : > > > On Wednesday 02 of December 2015 20:26:56 Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > 2015-12-02 20:08 GMT+01:00 Alvaro Herrera : > > > > > > > Pavel

Re: [HACKERS] pg_hba_lookup function to get all matching pg_hba.conf entries

2015-12-03 5:53 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule : > > > 2015-12-03 5:00 GMT+01:00 Haribabu Kommi : > >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Pavel Stehule >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > 2015-11-25 8:05 GMT+01:00 Haribabu Kommi

Re: [HACKERS] Error with index on unlogged table

Hi, On 2015-11-20 16:11:15 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > diff --git a/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c > b/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c > index cc845d2..4883697 100644 > --- a/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c > +++ b/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c > @@ -9503,6 +9503,14 @@

Re: [HACKERS] Passing initially_valid values instead of !skip_validation to StoreRelCheck() in AddRelationNewConstraints()

On 2015/12/03 20:44, amul sul wrote: >> On Thursday, 3 December 2015 4:36 PM, Amit Langote >> wrote: >> Especially from a readability standpoint, I think using skip_validation may >> be more apt. >> Why - the corresponding parameter of StoreRelCheck() dictates

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: PL/Pythonu - function ereport

2015-12-03 16:57 GMT+01:00 Catalin Iacob : > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > I am sorry, I don't understand. Now due inheritance plpy.Fatal and > > plpy.SPIError has availability to use keyword parameters. > > Indeed, I

Re: [HACKERS] Rework the way multixact truncations work

On 2015-12-03 04:38:45 -0500, Noah Misch wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 04:46:26PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > Especially if reverting and redoing includes conflicts that mainly > > increases the chance of accidental bugs. > > True. (That doesn't apply to these patches.) Uh, it does. You

Re: [HACKERS] eXtensible Transaction Manager API

On 4 December 2015 at 06:41, Robert Haas wrote: > > I think there are ways to reduce the cost of this. Some distributed > systems have solved it by retreating from snapshot isolation and going > back to using locks. This can improve scalability if you've got lots > of

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:05:47AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > * Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual > > > > Is this fixed by 5fc4c26db? If not, what remains to do? > > Unfortunately, no. That commit allows FDWs to do

Re: [HACKERS] Remaining 9.5 open items

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> These are mainly just documentation improvements which I'm working on, >> though the docs were recently updated and I need to incorporate Peter's >> changes which I wasn't exactly anticipating. > > So, when do you