[HACKERS] proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional

- new GUC in "Statement Behaviour" section, notify_duplicate_removal (default true) Initial discussion in this thread: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAP_rwwmpzk9=sbjrztod05bdctyc43wnknu_m37dygvl4sa...@mail.gmail.com Rationale: for some legitimate use cases, duplicate removal is not

Re: [HACKERS] Sanity checking for ./configure options?

On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 06:02:57PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: > 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 >

Re: [HACKERS] silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions

On 02/04/2016 09:59 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2016-02-02 09:56:40 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: And there is no actual risk of data loss Huh? More precise: what I mean here is that should an OS crash or a power

Re: [HACKERS] First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I've done a first pass at next week's release notes; please review. > > Committed at > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=7008e70d105b572821406744ce080771b74c06ab > and should be visible in the

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

All, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) 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 prepared to insist that

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

* Joe Conway (m...@joeconway.com) wrote: > On 02/05/2016 10:16 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > An in-core auditing solution would provide us with proper grammar > > support, ability to directly mark objects for auditing in the catalog, > > allow us to much more easily maintain auditing capability

Re: [HACKERS] Using quicksort for every external sort run

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > The economics of using 4MB or even 20MB to sort 10GB of data are > already preposterously bad for everyone that runs a database server, > no matter how budget conscious they may be. I can reluctantly accept > that we need

Re: [HACKERS] Development with Eclipse - Wrong error messages in IDE

> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:38 AM, Peter Moser wrote: > > Does anyone had similar problems? Do I have to configure Eclipse to > understand the PG_RMGR macro or is there another possibility to teach Eclipse > these macros? I just built 9.6 under Eclipse CDT to try this out and

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

On 02/05/2016 10:16 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > An in-core auditing solution would provide us with proper grammar > support, ability to directly mark objects for auditing in the catalog, > allow us to much more easily maintain auditing capability over time as > a small incremental bit of work for

Re: [HACKERS] Development with Eclipse - Wrong error messages in IDE

Peter Moser wrote: 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

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

Hello, Please find attached updated patch. >The point of having pgstat_report_progress_update_counter() is so that >you can efficiently update a single counter without having to update >everything, when only one counter has changed. But here you are >calling this function a whole bunch of

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

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Michael

[HACKERS] IF (NOT) EXISTS in psql-completion

Hello, I considered how to make tab-completion robust for syntactical noises, in other words, optional words in syntax. Typically "IF (NOT) EXISTS", UNIQUE and TEMPORARY are words that don't affect further completion. However, the current delimit-matching mechanism is not so capable (or is

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs)

On 2016/02/04 21:42, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: * Is it safe to replace outerjoinpath with its fdw_outerpath the following way? I think that if the join relation represented by outerjoinpath has local conditions that can't be executed remotely, we have to keep outerjoinpath in the

[HACKERS] First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

I've done a first pass at next week's release notes; please review. Committed at http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=7008e70d105b572821406744ce080771b74c06ab and should be visible in the website's devel-branch docs after the next guaibasaurus buildfarm run, due a

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs)

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:23 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > I have corrected this in this set of patches. Also, I have included the > change to build the join relation description while constructing fpinfo in > the main patch since that avoids repeated building of the

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs)

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> Would it be nuts to set fdw_scan_tlist in all cases? Would the code >> come out simpler than what we have now? > > PFA the patch that can be applied on v9 patches. > > If there is a whole-row reference for

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs)

> Btw, IIUC, I think the patch fails to adjust the targetlist of the top > plan created that way, to output the fdw_scan_tlist, as discussed in [1] > (ie, I think the attached patch is needed, which is created on top of your > patch pg_fdw_join_v8.patch). > > fdw_scan_tlist represents the output

Re: [HACKERS] silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> Not wrong, and this leads to the following: >>> void

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

> We may have a good idea of how to define a custom language, still we > are going to need to design a clean interface at catalog level more or > less close to what is written here. If we can get a clean interface, > the custom language implemented, and TAP tests that take advantage of > this

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

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > I agree with adding new system catalog to easily checking replication > status for user. And group name will needed for this. >

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

On 2016-02-05 05:06, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: Pavel Stehule writes: [ num_nulls_v6.patch ] I started looking through this. It seems generally okay, but I'm not very pleased with the function name "num_notnulls". I think it would be better as "num_nonnulls", as I

Re: [HACKERS] Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > On 2016/01/28 15:20, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Etsuro Fujita >> > wrote: >> >> On 2016/01/27 21:23, Rushabh

Re: [HACKERS] Relation extension scalability

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2016-01-28 16:53:08 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote: > > test_script: > > > > ./psql -d postgres -c "truncate table data" > > ./psql -d postgres -c "checkpoint" > > ./pgbench -f copy_script -T 120 -c$ -j$

Re: [HACKERS] Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Etsuro Fujita > wrote: > >> On 2016/01/28 15:20, Rushabh Lathia wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Etsuro Fujita >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Generalizing SortSupport for text to work with char(n), bytea, and alternative opclasses

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > Thanks for the review. I fixed the OID conflict, tweaked a few > comments, and committed this. Thanks. I noticed a tiny, preexisting typo in the string abbreviated key code. The attached patch fixes it. -- Peter

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs)

Would it be nuts to set fdw_scan_tlist in all cases? Would the code > come out simpler than what we have now? > > PFA the patch that can be applied on v9 patches. If there is a whole-row reference for base relation, instead of adding that as an additional column deparseTargetList() creates a

[HACKERS] 9.6 Release Schedule

Per discussion at the Brussels developer meeting and within the release team, the high level schedule for 9.6 will be: Beta: May (before PGCon) Release: September -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise

Re: [HACKERS] Comment typo in slot.c

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:39 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > I just bumped into the following typo in slot.c: > /* > * If we'd now fail - really unlikely - we wouldn't know > whether this slot > * would persist after an OS crash or not - so, force

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Amit Kapila >> wrote: >> > [ new patch ] >> >> I've committed this after heavy

Re: [HACKERS] Generalizing SortSupport for text to work with char(n), bytea, and alternative opclasses

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Thanks for the review. I fixed the OID conflict, tweaked a few >> comments, and committed this. > > Thanks. I noticed a tiny, preexisting typo

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs)

On 2016/02/04 21:57, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: One more: I think the following in postgresGetForeignJoinPaths() is a good idea, but I think it's okay to just check whether root->rowMarks is non-NIL, because that since we have rowmarks for all base relations except the target, if we

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

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:40 PM,

[HACKERS] Fix for OpenSSL error queue bug

Attached patch fixes an issue reported by William Felipe Welter about a year ago [1]. It is loosely based on his original patch. As Heikki goes into on that thread, the appropriate action seems to be to constantly reset the error queue, and to make sure that we ourselves clear the queue

[HACKERS] Explanation for bug #13908: hash joins are badly broken

I have sussed what's happening in bug #13908. Basically, commit 45f6240a8fa9d355 ("Pack tuples in a hash join batch densely, to save memory") broke things for the case where a hash join is using a skew table. The reason is that that commit only changed the storage of tuples going into the main

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional

Robert Haas writes: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Filip Rembiałkowski > wrote: >> - new GUC in "Statement Behaviour" section, notify_duplicate_removal > I agree with what Merlin said about this: >

Re: [HACKERS] Review: GiST support for UUIDs

On 12/25/2015 03:23 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 13:34:25 +0300 Teodor Sigaev wrote: First, variables (high and low) should not be declared in the middle of code. Second, assert will fail if ua.v64[0] == ub.v64[0] and ua.v64[1] > ub.v64[1] although it's a

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Filip Rembiałkowski wrote: > - new GUC in "Statement Behaviour" section, notify_duplicate_removal > (default true) > > Initial discussion in this thread: >

Re: [HACKERS] LLVM Address Sanitizer (ASAN) and valgrind support

On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 05:05:10PM +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > I feel like I remember hearing about this before but I can't find any > mention of it in my mail archives. It seems pretty simple to add > support for LLVM's Address Sanitizer (asan) by using the hooks we > already have for valgrind.

Re: [HACKERS] Explanation for bug #13908: hash joins are badly broken

* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > I'm of the opinion that this is a stop-ship bug for 9.5.1. Barring > somebody producing a fix over the weekend, I will deal with it by > reverting the aforementioned commit. Agreed. Thanks! Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature