Re: [HACKERS] Convert pltcl from strings to objects

On 2/23/16 6:04 AM, Victor Wagner wrote: On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:57:36 -0600 Jim Nasby wrote: On 2/18/16 6:26 AM, Victor Wagner wrote: (BTW, I also disagree about using a Tcl list for prodesc. That's an object in a *Postgres* hash table; as such it needs to be managed

[HACKERS] The plan for FDW-based sharding

There was discussion at the FOSDEM/PGDay Developer Meeting (https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FOSDEM/PGDay_2016_Developer_Meeting) about sharding so I wanted to outline where I think we are going with sharding and FDWs. First, let me point out that, unlike pg_upgrade and the Windows port, which

Re: [HACKERS] The plan for FDW-based sharding

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > 4. Cross-node read-write queries: > > This will require a global snapshot manager and global snapshot manager. > Probably meant "global transaction manager" ​David J.​

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

Hi, On 02/05/2016 10:40 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: 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: ... So, attached

Re: [HACKERS] More stable query plans via more predictable column statistics

Hi, On 02/08/2016 03:01 PM, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote: > ... I've incorporated this fix into the v2 of my patch, I think it is related closely enough. Also, added corresponding changes to compute_distinct_stats(), which doesn't produce a histogram. I think it'd be useful not to have all the

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

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 04:09:00PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 2/23/16 9:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >Jim Nasby wrote: > >>On 2/5/16 10:08 AM, David Fetter wrote: > >>>On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 06:02:57PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: > I just discovered that ./configure will happily accept

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

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > 1) I'm not quite sure why the patch adds missing_ok to fsync_fname()? The > only place where we use missing_ok=true is in rename_safe, where right at > the beginning we do this: > > fsync_fname(newfile, false, true); > > I.e. we're

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw vs. force_parallel_mode on ppc

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > Here is a first pass at that. [...] On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > file_fdw is parallel-safe, ... And here is a patch to apply on top of the last one, to make

[HACKERS] unexpected result from to_tsvector

Hello, Here is a little patch. It fixes this issue http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160217080048.26357.49...@wrigleys.postgresql.org Without patch we get wrong result for the second email 't...@123-reg.ro': => SELECT * FROM ts_debug('simple', 't...@vauban-reg.ro'); alias |

Re: [HACKERS] pg_export_snapshot on standby side

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 01:26:24PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 2:17 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > Seems we still have not addressed this. > > Thanks for the reminder :) I'm not sure if I have time to work on this > for a while. If anyone is interested

Re: [HACKERS] The plan for FDW-based sharding

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 09:54:46AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > 4. Cross-node read-write queries: > > This will require a global snapshot manager and global snapshot manager. > > > Probably meant "global

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

Hello, At Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:52:29 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Failover Slots

On 22 February 2016 at 23:39, Oleksii Kliukin wrote: > What it’s doing is calling pg_basebackup first to initialize the replica, > and that actually failed with: > > _basebackup: unexpected termination of replication stream: ERROR: > requested WAL segment

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: index-only scans with partial indexes

Hi, On 12/06/2015 11:48 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: /* * Frequently, there will be no partial indexes, so first check to * make sure there's something useful to do here. */ have_partial = false; foreach(lc, rel->indexlist) { IndexOptInfo *index = (IndexOptInfo *)

Re: [HACKERS] The plan for FDW-based sharding

On 23 February 2016 at 16:43, Bruce Momjian wrote: > There was discussion at the FOSDEM/PGDay Developer Meeting > (https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FOSDEM/PGDay_2016_Developer_Meeting) > about sharding so I wanted to outline where I think we are going with > sharding and FDWs.

[HACKERS] improving GROUP BY estimation

Hi, while working of using correlation statistics when estimating GROUP BY (or generally whatever uses estimate_num_groups), I've noticed that we apply the selectivity in a rather naive way. After estimating number of groups in the whole table - either by reading pg_stats.n_distinct for a

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

Hi, On 02/22/2016 08:04 PM, Corey Huinker wrote: > > Given that counterexample, I think we not only shouldn't back-patch such a > change but should reject it altogether. Ouch, good point. The overflows are a different problem that we had better address though (still on my

Re: [HACKERS] [JDBC] JDBC behaviour

On 23 February 2016 at 22:46, Tom Lane wrote: > Craig Ringer writes: > > On 23 February 2016 at 21:34, Robert Haas wrote: > >> I believe Sridhar is imagining that someday "set autocommit to false" > >> might be a command that

Re: [HACKERS] The plan for FDW-based sharding

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 01:08:29AM +, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 23 February 2016 at 16:43, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > There was discussion at the FOSDEM/PGDay Developer Meeting > (https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FOSDEM/PGDay_2016_Developer_Meeting) > about sharding

Re: [HACKERS] Convert pltcl from strings to objects

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:57:36 -0600 Jim Nasby wrote: > On 2/18/16 6:26 AM, Victor Wagner wrote: > Are you referring to this comment? > > > / > > * Add the proc description block to the

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add some isolation tests for deadlock detection and resolution.

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> No, you don't. I've spent a good deal of time thinking about that problem. >> [ much snipped ] >> Unless I'm missing something, though, this is a fairly obscure >> problem. Early release of catalog locks is desirable, and

Re: [HACKERS] Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > I mean, my basic feeling is that I would not accept a 2-3% regression in >> the single client case to get a 10% speedup in the case where we have 128 >> clients. >> > > I understand your point. I think to verify

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw vs. force_parallel_mode on ppc

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Even if there were, it would not fix this bug, because AFAICS the only > thing that set_rel_consider_parallel is chartered to do is set the > per-relation consider_parallel flag. The failure that is happening in > that

[HACKERS] tab completion for CREATE USER MAPPING

Hi, Attached patch implements the tab-completion for CREATE USER MAPPING command. Comments? Regards, -- Fujii Masao *** a/src/bin/psql/tab-complete.c --- b/src/bin/psql/tab-complete.c *** *** 656,661 static const SchemaQuery Query_for_list_of_matviews = { --- 656,667 "

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

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 6:32 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> To be honest, my heart still balances for the Extended() interface. >> This reduces the risk of conflicts with back-patching with 9.5. > > Andres, others, what else can I do to make this thread move on? I can >

Re: [HACKERS] [JDBC] JDBC behaviour

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> currently PostgreSQL::"set autocommit to FALSE ( not supported ) > > This also does not make any sense. > > PgJDBC does support turning autocommit off. So I don't know in what way it's > "not supported". I believe

Re: [HACKERS] Pushing down sorted joins

Rushabh pointed out that declarations of helper functions get_useful_ecs_for_relation and get_useful_pathkeys_for_relation() are part of FDW routines declarations rather than helper function declaration. Since those functions are related to this patch, the attached patch moves those declaration in

Re: [HACKERS] significant semi join overestimates (with CTEs)

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Firstly, we could clamp the join cardinality estimate to the size of > cartesian product, eliminating at least the most obvious over-estimates. > > Secondly, I think it'd be nice to somehow eliminate the sudden

Re: [HACKERS] Allow to specify (auto-)vacuum cost limits relative to the database/cluster size?

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > right now the defaults for autovacuum cost limiting are so low that they > regularly cause problems for our users. It's not exactly obvious that > any installation above a couple gigabytes definitely needs to change >

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw vs. force_parallel_mode on ppc

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas writes: Foreign tables are supposed to be categorically excluded from parallelism. Not sure why

Re: [HACKERS] Why vacuum_freeze_table_age etc. doc in "Statement Behavior" section?

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > The explanations for vacuum_freeze_table_age etc. are in the section > "Statement Behavior", which is a subsection of "Client Connection > Defaults". To me vacuum_freeze_table_age etc. are totally unrelated > to "Client

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

Hi, On 01/05/2016 10:38 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: Hi, ... There shouldn't be a difference between the two approaches (although I guess there could be if one left a larger pending list than the other, as pending lists is very space inefficient), but since you included 9.5 in your test I

[HACKERS] Why vacuum_freeze_table_age etc. doc in "Statement Behavior" section?

The explanations for vacuum_freeze_table_age etc. are in the section "Statement Behavior", which is a subsection of "Client Connection Defaults". To me vacuum_freeze_table_age etc. are totally unrelated to "Client Connection Defaults". I think "Resource Consumption" section is more appropriate

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

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> Well, turns out there's a quite significant difference, actually. The >> index sizes I get (quite stable after multiple runs): >> >> 9.5 : 2428 MB >> 9.6 + alone cleanup : 730 MB >> 9.6 + pending

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Failover Slots

> On 23 Feb 2016, at 11:30, Craig Ringer wrote: > > > Updated patch > > ... attached > > I've split it up a bit more too, so it's easier to tell what change is for > what and fixed the issues mentioned by Oleksii. I've also removed some > unrelated documentation

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema PL session variables

2016-02-12 22:41 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby : > On 2/12/16 2:58 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> >> So I think adding something like this needs to at least address >> *how* SQL level access would work, *when* it's eventually implemented. >> >> >> I understand - and I

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

On 2/23/16 9:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Jim Nasby wrote: On 2/5/16 10:08 AM, David Fetter wrote: 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

Re: [HACKERS] Writing new unit tests with PostgresNode

On 23 February 2016 at 09:52, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Craig Ringer wrote: > > > >> > +=pod > >> > + > >> > +=head2 Set up a node > >> > pod format... Do we really want that?

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

Jim Nasby wrote: > On 2/5/16 10:08 AM, David Fetter wrote: > >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

Re: [HACKERS] Writing new unit tests with PostgresNode

On 23 February 2016 at 21:39, Craig Ringer wrote: > > Just finished doing that. Thanks for taking a look at the first patch so > quickly. I hope this one's better. > CF entry created. https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/536/ -- Craig Ringer

Re: [HACKERS] [JDBC] JDBC behaviour

On 23 February 2016 at 21:34, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Craig Ringer > wrote: > >> currently PostgreSQL::"set autocommit to FALSE ( not supported ) > > > > This also does not make any sense. > > > > PgJDBC does support

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >> Personally, I would be more inclined to make this a CREATE TABLE statement, >> like >> >> CREATE TABLE partition_name PARTITION OF parent_name FOR VALUES ... >> CREATE TABLE subpartition_name PARTITION OF

Re: [HACKERS] [JDBC] JDBC behaviour

Craig Ringer writes: > On 23 February 2016 at 21:34, Robert Haas wrote: >> I believe Sridhar is imagining that someday "set autocommit to false" >> might be a command that the server would understand. > ... I guess. Yeah. We've been there, we've

Re: [HACKERS] tab completion for CREATE USER MAPPING

Fujii Masao writes: > Attached patch implements the tab-completion for CREATE USER MAPPING command. > Comments? I think it's really bad style to use "Query_for_list_of_users" as the name of a query that does not in fact deliver a list of user names, but something else with