Re: [HACKERS] Tracing down buildfarm "postmaster does not shut down" failures

Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 02/09/2016 07:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> However, I'd already noted from some other digging in the buildfarm >> logs that axolotl's speed seems to vary tremendously. I do not >> know what else you typically run on that hardware, but putting it >>

Re: [HACKERS] Tracing down buildfarm "postmaster does not shut down" failures

Andrew Dunstan writes: > anyway, we got a failure pretty quickly: > pg_ctl: server does not shut down at 2016-02-09 21:10:11.914 EST > ... > LOG: received fast shutdown request at 2016-02-09 21:09:11.824 EST > ... > LOG: checkpointer dead at 2016-02-09 21:09:14.683 EST

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

On 2/9/16 8:40 AM, Daniel Verite wrote: Alvaro Herrera wrote: While I understand that you may think that "silence is consent", what I am afraid of is that some committer will look at this two months from now and say "I hate this Hcol+ stuff, -1 from me" and send the patch back for

Re: [HACKERS] Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> Well, the idea is to improve the system responsiveness. Imagine that > >> the call to

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

Hello, At Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:25:49 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote in > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:57 AM, Fujii

[HACKERS] pgcrypto: add s2k-count

pgcrypto supports s2k-mode for key-stretching during symmetric encryption, and even defaults to s2k-mode=3, which means configurable iterations. But it doesn't support s2k-count to actually set those iterations to be anything other than the default. If you are interested in key-stretching, the

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

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:57 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Masahiko Sawada >> wrote: >>> Attached first version dedicated language

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

Hello, At Wed, 10 Feb 2016 02:57:54 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote in > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Michael Paquier

Re: [HACKERS] GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Yury Zhuravlev wrote: > I've just run into a problem with these macro. Function ginStepRight breaks > completely when compiled using the MSVC2013 and MSVC2015 (since these > releases use C99's bools but without stdbool.h like C++). > I

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

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: > I am personally fine with () and [] as you mention, we could even consider > {}, each one of them has a different meaning

Re: [HACKERS] Tracing down buildfarm "postmaster does not shut down" failures

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 10:55:24PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch writes: > > On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 02:15:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> We've seen variants > >> on this theme on half a dozen machines just in the past week --- and it > >> seems to mostly happen in 9.5

Re: [HACKERS] Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Amit Kapila > wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Michael Paquier < > michael.paqu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > > > > Consider below

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

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Yes, I will implement regression test patch and documentation patch as well. Cool, now that we have a clear picture of where we want to move, that would be an excellent thing to have. Having the docs in the place

Re: CustomScan in a larger structure (RE: [HACKERS] CustomScan support on readfuncs.c)

> -Original Message- > From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 11:59 PM > To: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平) > Cc: Andres Freund; Amit Kapila; pgsql-hackers > Subject: ##freemail## Re: CustomScan in a larger structure (RE: [HACKERS] > CustomScan support on

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: function parse_ident

Hi sorry, I am sending missing attachment Regards Pavel diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml new file mode 100644 index f9eea76..bfba459 *** a/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml --- b/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml *** *** 1821,1826 --- 1821,1843

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

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> I think we ought to move the buffer mapping, lock

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

Yay, finally! Thanks. On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: > > Thanks Jeevan for your review and comments. PFA the patch which fixes > those. > > Committed with a

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

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> Thanks Jeevan for your review and comments. PFA the patch which fixes those. > > Committed with a couple more small

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: postgres_fdw: Push down joins to remote servers.

Sorry for the trouble. Thanks Robert for fixing it. On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Robert Haas writes: > >> postgres_fdw: Push down joins to remote

Re: [HACKERS] Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Michael Paquier < michael.paqu...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> Well,

Re: [HACKERS] Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Michael Paquier < > michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Amit Kapila >> wrote: >> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:17

Re: [HACKERS] Freeze avoidance of very large table.

Hello, At Thu, 4 Feb 2016 02:32:29 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote in > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Masahiko Sawada wrote: > >> I think we have

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: multiple psql option -c

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I generally use the master branch psql for normal work, and this change > has caused massive breakage for me. It's straightforward to fix, but in > some cases the breakage is silent, for example if you do >

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

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Also, to be frank, I think we ought to be putting more effort into >>>

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

Tom Lane wrote: > I do not think we want any client-side sorting in this feature at all, > because the minute you have any such thing, you are going to have an > absolutely never-ending stream of demands for more sorting features: > multi column, numeric vs text, ASC vs DESC,

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

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I think we ought to move the buffer mapping, lock manager, and >> predicate lock manager locks into their own tranches also, perhaps >> using

<    1   2