On 02/02/2016 07:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Curtis Ruck
wrote:
Additionally Robert, given your professional status, you are by no means an
unbiased contributor in this discussion. Your stance on this matter shows
that you don't necessarily want the open source so
Attached patch removes an extraneous word in the comment above
SyncRepReleaseWaiters() in syncrep.c
- * Other policies are possible, which would change what we do here and what
+ * Other policies are possible, which would change what we do here and
* perhaps also which information we store as we
On 2016/02/03 17:50, Amit Langote wrote:
> Attached patch removes an extraneous word in the comment above
I kept reading and found one place in a comment within the function where
a word is most probably missing, Attached fixes it.
/*
* If this WALSender is serving a standby that is n
Good morning hackers,
I have some strange error message inside Eclipse, that some symbols
cannot be found. I work with version 9.6 currently. For instance,
Symbol 'RM_HEAP_ID' could not be resolved
src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
It affects all occurrences of symbols that are defined in
src/i
Hi Thomas,
On 2016/01/20 13:12, Thomas Munro wrote:
> That one conflicts with b1a9bad9e744857291c7d5516080527da8219854, so
> here is a new version.
-if (walsndctl->lsn[SYNC_REP_WAIT_WRITE] < MyWalSnd->write)
+if (is_highest_priority_sync_standby)
[ ... ]
-if (walsndctl->lsn[SYNC_RE
On 2016/01/28 15:20, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Etsuro Fujita
mailto:fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp>> wrote:
On 2016/01/27 21:23, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
If I understood correctly, above documentation means, that if
FDW have
DMLPushdown APIs t
On 02/03/2016 06:46 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 07:03:45PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 12/22/2015 03:49 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
...
If the collector entered pgstat_write_statsfile() with more
inquiries waiting in its socket receive buffer, it would ignore
them as being too ol
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> There seems to be a copy-pasto there - shouldn't that be:
>
> + if (walsndctl->lsn[SYNC_REP_WAIT_FLUSH] < MyWalSnd->flush)
Indeed, thanks! New patch attached.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
causal-reads-v6.patch
Description:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Jim Nasby
wrote:
>>
>> On 1/31/16 3:26 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/27/2016 08:30 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
operation. Now why OS couldn't find the corresponding block in
memory is that, whi
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On further testing, it has been observed that misaligned writes could
> cause reads even when blocks related to file are not in-memory, so
> I think what Jan is describing is right. The case where there is
> absolutely zero chance of reads is w
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
>> I don't see how. There really is no declaration in there for a
>> variable called server.
>
> Absolutely correct. My only guess is that it was from failing to make clean
> after a checkout/re-checkout. A good reason to have even boring regr
On 2016-02-02 10:12:25 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> @@ -8239,7 +8262,7 @@ CreateCheckPoint(int flags)
> if ((flags & (CHECKPOINT_IS_SHUTDOWN |
> CHECKPOINT_END_OF_RECOVERY |
>CHECKPOINT_FORCE)) == 0)
> {
> - if
> (prevPtr == ControlFile->checkPointCopy.redo &&
> + if (GetProgressRecPtr() ==
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> > Well, to put it short, I am just trying to find a way to make the
>> > backend skip unnecessary checkpoints on an idle
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 6:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> currently if, when not in standby mode, we can't read a checkpoint
> record, we automatically fall back to the previous checkpoint, and start
> replay from there.
>
> Doing so without user intervention doesn't actually seem like a good
> idea.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> OK, here are patches for 9.1~9.4. The main differences are that in
> 9.3/9.4 int64 is used for the division operations, and in 9.2/9.1
> that's int32. In the latter case pgbench blows up the same way with
> that:
> \set i -2147483648
> \set
On 2/2/16 11:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've gotta go with the "paternalism" side of the argument here. Suppose
>> you configure your system to checkpoint once a year --- what is going to
>> happen when the year is up? Or when you try to shut
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> OK, here are patches for 9.1~9.4. The main differences are that in
>> 9.3/9.4 int64 is used for the division operations, and in 9.2/9.1
>> that's int32. In the latter case pgbench blo
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Right now it takes checkpoint_timeout till we start a checkpoint, and
> checkpoint_timeout + checkpoint_timeout * checkpoint_completion_target
> till we complete the first checkpoint after shutdown/forced checkpoints.
>
> That means a) that su
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> I don't think the data is referenced by the AFTER ROW DELETE triggers.
Why do you think that? And why would DELETE triggers be different
from UPDATE triggers, which do something similar?
I looked up the history of this code and it was intro
Hi Robert,
Thank you for replying.
On 2/1/16 11:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> OK, I'll bite: I'm worried that this patch will be a maintenance
> burden. It's easy to imagine that changes to core will result in the
> necessity or at least desirability of changes to pgaudit, but I'm
> definitely not
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
>> Sorry for my late response. I've been unavailable to have enough
>> time to touch code for the last 1.5 month.
>>
>> The attached patch is a revised one to handle private data of
>> fore
There seems to be double successive assignment to fdw_private in recent
commit. Here's patch to remove the first one.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Corey Huinker
> wrote:
> >> I don't see how. There really is no declaration in there for a
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:37 AM, David Steele wrote:
> On 2/1/16 11:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> OK, I'll bite: I'm worried that this patch will be a maintenance
>> burden. It's easy to imagine that changes to core will result in the
>> necessity or at least desirability of changes to pgaudit, bu
Attached please find patch for "ALTER INDEX ... WHERE ..." clause.
It is now able to handle all three possible situations:
1. Making index partial (add WHERE condition to the ordinary index)
2. Extend partial index range (less restricted index predicate)
3. Arbitrary change of partial index predic
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> There seems to be double successive assignment to fdw_private in recent
> commit. Here's patch to remove the first one.
Committed along with a fix for another problem I noted along the way.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterpri
Hi,
Status summary:
Needs review: 7.
Ready for Committer: 11.
Committed: 28.
Moved to next CF: 23.
Rejected: 2.
Returned with Feedback: 28.
Total: 99.
I just closed a large number of patches in the 2006-01 commitfest as
"returned with feedback". The vast majority of those were in "waiting
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
>> I misunderstood. Sorry for noise.
>> I agree with adding conversion method as a pageConverter routine.
>
> \o/
>
>> This patch doesn't change page layout actually, but pageConverter
>> routine checks only the page
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> A number of patches still remain in the current commitfest. 11 of them
> are marked as "ready for committer" so supposedly some committer should
> grab them and push them.
The "SET ROLE hook" patch should be moved to RWF state; it's not going
to be committed in anything
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:37 AM, David Steele wrote:
> > On 2/1/16 11:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> >> In
> >> saying that it's arbitrary, I'm not saying it isn't *useful*. I'm
> >> saying there could be five extensions like this that make eq
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/8/372/
> \crosstabview (previously: \rotate) in psql for crosstab-style display
About this one, the code is no longer moving, the latest addition was
regression tests a couple days ago.
I think it should be moved to the next
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
>> total ForeignScandiff
>> 0 workers: 17584.319 ms 17555.904 ms 28.415 ms
>> 1 workers: 18464.476 ms 18110.968 ms 353.508 ms
>> 2 workers: 19042.755 ms 14580.335 ms4462.420 ms
>> 3 workers: 19318
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:38 PM, David G. Johnston
wrote:
>> Right now that may be true, although it wouldn't surprise me very much
>> to find out that other people have written such extensions and they
>> just didn't get as much press. Also, consider the future. It is
>> *possible* that your ve
On 02/03/2016 10:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I'll be the first to admit that the design is not the prettiest. Trying
It's entirely reasonable for the community NOT to want to
privilege one implementation over another.
This, not so much.
No, this is ABSOLUTELY critical. Suppose EnterpriseDB
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> pg_monitor
>
> Allows roles granted more information from pg_stat_activity. Can't be
> just a regular non-default-role right as we don't, currently, have a
> way to say "filter out the values of certain columns on certain rows,
> but
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> As described in a recent Reddit discussion[1] and bug report 9301[2],
> there are scenarios where overlapping concurrent read-write sequences
> produce serialization failures without constraints, but produce
> constraint violations when there
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> I have reviewed this now and I think this is a useful addition even though
> these indexes are less common. Consistent behavior is worth a lot in my mind
> and this patch is reasonably small.
>
> The patch no longer applies due to 1) oid
On 2/3/16 11:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> That's good to hear, but again, it's not enough for a core submission.
> Code that goes into our main git repository needs to be "the
> prettiest". I mean it's not all perfect of course, but it should be
> pretty darn good.
I still think it's pretty darn
Dne 3. 2. 2016 20:51 napsal uživatel "Daniel Verite" <
dan...@manitou-mail.org>:
>
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/8/372/
> > \crosstabview (previously: \rotate) in psql for crosstab-style
display
>
> About this one, the code is no longer moving, the lat
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Vik Fearing wrote:
> Attached is a rebased and revised version of my
> idle_in_transaction_session_timeout patch from last year.
>
> This version does not suffer the problems the old one did where it would
> jump out of SSL code thanks to Andres' patch in commit
>
On 2/3/16 2:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Vik Fearing wrote:
Attached is a rebased and revised version of my
idle_in_transaction_session_timeout patch from last year.
This version does not suffer the problems the old one did where it would
jump out of SSL code than
On 2/3/16 10:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
People who are interested in audit are also understandably leery of
>downloading code from an untrusted source. Both PGXN and GitHub are The
>Wild West as far as conservative auditors are concerned.
I hate to be rude here, but that's not my problem. You c
On 2/2/16 10:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Now, you could also set such configuration settings in
a situation where it will not work out well. But that is true of most
configuration settings.
Yeah, if we're going to start playing parent then I think the first
thing to do is remove the fsync GUC.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 2/3/16 2:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Vik Fearing wrote:
>>>
>>> Attached is a rebased and revised version of my
>>> idle_in_transaction_session_timeout patch from last year.
>>>
>>> This version does not su
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> The patch implements your algorithm to deparse a query as described in
> previous mail. The logic is largely coded in deparseFromExprForRel() and
> foreign_join_ok(). The later one pulls up the clauses from joining relations
> and first one
Jim Nasby writes:
> As for PGXN being an untrusted source, that's something that it's in the
> project's best interest to try and address somehow, perhaps by having
> formally audited extensions. Amazon already has to do this to some
> degree before an extension can be allowed in RDS, and so do
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be more sensible to just roll the transaction back and not
>> disconnect?
> It would be nice to be able to do that, but the client-server protocol
> can't handle it without losing sync. Basically, if you send
On 2/3/16 4:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>>> Wouldn't it be more sensible to just roll the transaction back and not
>>> disconnect?
>
> I'm not sure how messy this would be in practice. But if we think that
> killing the whole
On 2/3/16 4:05 PM, David Steele wrote:
On 2/3/16 4:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
Wouldn't it be more sensible to just roll the transaction back and not
disconnect?
I'm not sure how messy this would be in practice. But if we thi
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> I think killing the session is a perfectly sensible thing to do in this
>> case. Everything meaningful that was done in the session will be rolled
>> back - no need to waste resources keeping the connection open.
>
>
> Except you end up losing s
On 02/03/2016 11:36 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 2/3/16 4:05 PM, David Steele wrote:
>> On 2/3/16 4:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Robert Haas writes:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Jim Nasby
wrote:
> Wouldn't it be more sensible to just roll the transaction back and not
> disconnect?
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> PFA patches with naming conventions similar to previous ones.
> pg_fdw_core_v7.patch: core changes
> pg_fdw_join_v7.patch: postgres_fdw changes for join pushdown
> pg_join_pd_v7.patch: combined patch for ease of testing.
Hmm, I think that G
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> PFA patches with naming conventions similar to previous ones.
>> pg_fdw_core_v7.patch: core changes
>> pg_fdw_join_v7.patch: postgres_fdw changes for join pushdown
>> pg_join_pd_v7.pat
On 02/03/2016 02:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
I think killing the session is a perfectly sensible thing to do in this
case. Everything meaningful that was done in the session will be rolled
back - no need to waste resources keeping the connection o
On 1/21/16 11:47 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
BTW, could you explain, what is the reason to copy data into the
pending list and then copy it again while flushing pending list into
the index? Why not read this data directly from the table? I feel that
I've missed something important here.
No,
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> As described in a recent Reddit discussion[1] and bug report 9301[2],
>> there are scenarios where overlapping concurrent read-write sequences
>> produce serialization failures without c
"Joshua D. Drake" writes:
> On 02/03/2016 02:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Well, my view is that if somebody wants an alternative behavior
>> besides dropping the connection, they can write a patch to provide
>> that as an additional option. That, too, has been discussed before.
>> But the fact th
I'm looking into fixing the problem reported here:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1445a624-d09f-4b51-9c41-46ba1e2d6...@neveragain.de
namely that if we split a view into a table + rule (because of circular
dependencies), parallel pg_restore fails to ensure that it creates any
triggers for the
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 2:54 AM
> To: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平)
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: ##freemail## Re: [HACKERS] CustomScan under the Gather node?
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Kou
I just discovered that ./configure will happily accept '--with-pgport='
(I was actually doing =$PGPORT, and didn't realize $PGPORT was empty).
What you end up with is a compile error in guc.c, with no idea why it's
broken. Any reason not to have configure or at least make puke if pgport
isn't v
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
> >> Sorry for my late response. I've been unavailable to have enough
> >> time to touch code for the last 1.5 month.
> >>
> >> The attached patch is a revised one to handle private dat
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" writes:
>> On 02/03/2016 02:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Well, my view is that if somebody wants an alternative behavior
>>> besides dropping the connection, they can write a patch to provide
>>> that as an additional option. T
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
>> Well, looking at this a bit more, it seems like the documentation
>> you've written here is really misplaced. The patch is introducing a
>> new facility that applies to both CustomScan and ForeignScan, but the
>> documentation is only to do
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 06:18:02PM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I just closed a large number of patches in the 2006-01 commitfest as
> "returned with feedback". The vast majority of those were in "waiting
> on author"; I verified that the threads had posted something to the
> author and the auth
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> Thank you.
+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 subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think it's technically quite possible to maintain the required
> resources on multiple nodes. The question is how would you configure on
> which nodes the resources need to be maintained? I can't come up with a
> satisfying scheme...
For
On 2/3/16 8:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Joshua D. Drake" writes:
>>> On 02/03/2016 02:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Well, my view is that if somebody wants an alternative behavior
besides dropping the connection, they can write a patch to
On 2016/02/04 12:04, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
Thank you.
+1.
Thank you!
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpr
On 2016/02/04 0:13, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
I don't think the data is referenced by the AFTER ROW DELETE triggers.
Why do you think that? And why would DELETE triggers be different
from UPDATE triggers, which do something similar?
As for the
> -Original Message-
> From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Robert Haas
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 11:39 AM
> To: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平)
> Cc: Andres Freund; Amit Kapila; pgsql-hackers
> Subject: Re: CustomScan in a large
The following message, which bears "User-Agent: pgcommitfest",
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20160202164101.1291.30526.p...@coridan.postgresql.org
added spaces after commas in its subject line, compared to the subject line of
its In-Reply-To message.
new subject line: Re: Add ge
> > KaiGai-san,
> >
> > On 2016/02/01 10:38, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
> > > As an aside, background of my motivation is the slide below:
> > > http://www.slideshare.net/kaigai/sqlgpussd-english
> > > (LT slides in JPUG conference last Dec)
> > >
> > > I'm under investigation of SSD-to-GPU direct featur
On Feb 4, 2016, at 2:00 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>
> My suspicion is that it would be useful to pre-order the new data before
> trying to apply it to the indexes.
Sorry, but ALTER INDEX is expected to work for all indexes, not only B-Tree,
and for them sorting may not be possible...
But for B-Tre
On 02/04/2016 01:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm looking into fixing the problem reported here:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1445a624-d09f-4b51-9c41-46ba1e2d6...@neveragain.de
> namely that if we split a view into a table + rule (because of circular
> dependencies), parallel pg_restore fails
73 matches
Mail list logo
