Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failing assertions in spgtextproc.c

On 2015-12-19 07:04:09 +0100, Andreas Seltenreich wrote: > output below. Since sqlsmith ist no longer restricted to read-only > statements, the chances for reproduction are low :-/. How many backends are concurrently writing data with sqlsmith? Just one? If so, and possibly even otherwise, it

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] Proposal for \rotate in psql

2015-12-19 6:55 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule : > > > 2015-12-18 21:21 GMT+01:00 Daniel Verite : > >> Pavel Stehule wrote: >> >> > The symbol 'X' in two column mode should be centred - now it is aligned >> to >> > left, what is not nice >> >>

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] Failing assertions in spgtextproc.c

Andreas Seltenreich writes: > I do see two assertions in spgtextproc.c fail on occasion when testing > with sqlsmith: > TRAP: FailedAssertion([...], File: "spgtextproc.c", Line: 424) > TRAP: FailedAssertion([...], File: "spgtextproc.c", Line: 564) Can you show us the

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 2:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Robert Haas > wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Rushabh

Re: [HACKERS] Costing foreign joins in postgres_fdw

Robert Haas wrote: >> Maybe, to come up with something remotely realistic, a formula like >> >> sum of locally estimated costs of sequential scan for the base table >> plus count of estimated result rows (times a factor) > > Was this meant to say "the base tables", plural? Yes. > I think

Re: [HACKERS] Making tab-complete.c easier to maintain

Michael Paquier writes: > On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> 2. Why does MatchAnyExcept use "'" as the inversion flag, rather than >> say "!" or "~" ? Seems pretty random. > Actually, "'" is not that much a good idea, no? There

Re: [HACKERS] Making tab-complete.c easier to maintain

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 6:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > 1. I think it would be a good idea to convert the matching rules for > backslash commands too. To do that, we'd need to provide a case-sensitive > equivalent to word_match and the matching macros. I think we'd also have > to

Re: [HACKERS] Making tab-complete.c easier to maintain

Michael Paquier writes: > On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> 1. It seems inconsistent that all the new macros are named in CamelCase >> style, whereas there is still plenty of usage of the existing macros like >> COMPLETE_WITH_LIST.

Re: [HACKERS] GIN data corruption bug(s) in 9.6devel

Hi, On 11/06/2015 02:09 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: Hi, On 11/06/2015 01:05 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: ... I can do that - I see there are three patches in the two threads: 1) gin_pending_lwlock.patch (Jeff

Re: [HACKERS] Making tab-complete.c easier to maintain

I wrote: > 3. The HeadMatches macros are pretty iffy because they can only look back > nine words. I'm tempted to redesign get_previous_words so it just > tokenizes the whole line rather than having an arbitrary limitation. > (For that matter, it's long overdue for it to be able to deal with >

Re: [HACKERS] POC: Cache data in GetSnapshotData()

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:15 AM, Mithun Cy wrote: > I have rebased the patch and tried to run pgbench. > I see memory corruptions, attaching the valgrind report for the same. Sorry forgot to add re-based patch, adding the same now. After some analysis I saw writing

Re: [HACKERS] extend pgbench expressions with functions

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: >> It was definitely useful to debug the double/int type stuff within >> expressions when writing a non trivial pgbench script. It is probably less >> interesting if there are only integers. > > > After looking again at

Re: [HACKERS] Fuzzy substring searching with the pg_trgm extension

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Artur Zakirov wrote: > On 18.12.2015 22:43, Artur Zakirov wrote: > >> Hello. >> >> PostgreSQL has a contrib module named pg_trgm. It is used to the fuzzy >> text search. It provides some functions and operators for determining the >>

Re: [HACKERS] pg_tables bug?

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 01:50 Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > > On 12/18/2015 05:18 PM, Gaetano Mendola wrote: > > From documentation about "CREATE DATABASE name WITH TABLESAPCE = > > tablespace_name": > > > > tablespace_name > > The name of the tablespace that will be

Re: [HACKERS] Making tab-complete.c easier to maintain

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Thomas Munro writes: >> [ tab-complete-macrology-v11.patch.gz ] > > A couple of stylistic reactions after looking through the patch for the > first time in a long time: > > 1. It seems

Re: [HACKERS] Refactoring speculative insertion with unique indexes a little

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > +1. There are folks around doing tests using 9.5 now, it is not > correct to impact the effort they have been putting on it until now. This is a total misrepresentation of what I've said. -- Peter Geoghegan

Re: [HACKERS] Refactoring speculative insertion with unique indexes a little

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > No, it's far too late to be pushing this into 9.5. We are at RC1 now > and hoping to cut a final release right after Christmas. I think it's > quite wrong to argue that these changes have no risk of destabilizing > 9.5. Nobody is exempt from

Re: [HACKERS] An unlikely() experiment

On 20 December 2015 at 03:06, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-12-20 02:49:13 +1300, David Rowley wrote: > > So I choose to ignore that, and give > > it a try anyway... elog(ERROR) for example, surely that branch should > > always be in a cold path? ... ereport() too perhaps? >

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: bloom filter in Hash Joins with batches

Tomas, have you seen http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4b4dd67f.9010...@sigaev.ru I have very limited internet connection (no graphics) , so I may miss something Oleg On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Hi, > > while working on the Hash Join

Re: [HACKERS] extend pgbench expressions with functions

After looking again at the code, I remembered why double are useful: there are needed for random exponential & gaussian because the last parameter is a double. I do not care about the sqrt, but double must be allowed to keep that, and the randoms are definitely useful for a pgbench script. Now

[HACKERS] An unlikely() experiment

Many of you might know of GCC's __builtin_expect() and that it allows us to tell the compiler which code branches are more likely to occur. The documentation on this does warn that normally it's a bad idea to use this "as programmers are notoriously bad at predicting how their programs actually

Re: [HACKERS] An unlikely() experiment

Hi, On 2015-12-20 02:49:13 +1300, David Rowley wrote: > Many of you might know of GCC's __builtin_expect() and that it allows us to > tell the compiler which code branches are more likely to occur. It also tells the reader that, which I find also rather helpful. > The documentation on this