Petr Jelinek writes:
> On 01/03/16 18:37, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, I'm not sure that's 100% of the issue, because in playing around
>> with this I was having a harder time reproducing the failure outside of
>> Tobias' example than I expected. There may be more than one
On 3/1/16 3:35 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
I'd suggest we either name it based on the current
I wrote:
> I'm not sure if the costing change is a bug or not --- the non-bitmap scan
> does seem to be cheaper in reality, but not by a couple orders of
> magnitude as the planner now thinks.
Ah, scratch that, I wasn't looking closely enough. The 9.4 plan is an
IndexScan whereas 9.5+ uses
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
wrote:
> Some time ago we added [1] the infrastructure to allow different lock levels
> for relation options.
>
> So per discussion [2] the attached patch reduce lock levels down to
> ShareUpdateExclusiveLock for:
David Steele writes:
> I volunteered a while back to be the CFM and I haven't seen any other
> volunteers or objections to my offer.
> I am still ready, eager, and willing!
I haven't heard any other volunteers either. You have the conn, sir.
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> Yeah, we can do that. I'd suggest we either name it based on the current
>>> tentative date for CF1 (september), or name it specificaly
On 03/01/2016 09:19 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
Since this thread heavily discusses the XTM, I have question about the XTM as proposed because one thing is very unclear to me - what happens when user changes the XTM plugin on the server? I didn't see any xid handover API which makes me wonder if
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:33 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> I divided the last patch into one typo-fix patch and one
> improvement patch. This is the former one.
Committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL
I volunteered a while back to be the CFM and I haven't seen any other
volunteers or objections to my offer.
I am still ready, eager, and willing!
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
I wrote:
> Petr Jelinek writes:
>> I can only get the issue when the sort order of the individual keys does
>> not correlate and the operator sorts according to the first column and
>> there are duplicate values for the first column.
> Yeah, I think the combination of ASC
On 3/1/16 3:28 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> > Yeah, we can do that. I'd suggest we either name it based on the current
> > tentative date for CF1 (september), or name it specificaly "9.7-first"
> or
> >
On 27/02/16 04:54, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
We do not have formal prove that proposed XTM is "general enough" to handle
all possible transaction manager implementations.
But there are two general ways of dealing
On 1 March 2016 at 06:34, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Valery Popov
> wrote:
> > vpopov@vpopov-Ubuntu:~/Projects/pwdtest/postgresql$ git branch
>
> Thanks for the input!
>
> >
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Michael Paquier <
> michael.paqu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I guess that commit fest 2016-03 is going to begin soon, at which
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 2:54 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>
>> Could you enhance the documentation about the difference between "wait
>> event type name" and "wait event name" (examples?)?
>>
>
> I am
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
>> Hello, this is the second patch plitted out. This allows
>> multibyte names to be completed in psql.
>>
>> At Fri,
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 07:56:58PM +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> Note that I am not saying that other discussed approaches are any
> better, I am saying that we should know approximately what we
> actually want and not just beat FDWs with a hammer and hope sharding
> will eventually emerge and call
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 02:02:44PM -0500, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 07:56:58PM +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> > Note that I am not saying that other discussed approaches are any
> > better, I am saying that we should know approximately what we
> > actually want and not just beat FDWs
On 3/1/16 10:05 AM, Atri Sharma wrote:
Fair point, that means inventing a whole new OID generation structure..
Generation is just the tip of the iceberg. You still need the equivalent
to foreign keys (ie: pg_depend). While you would never have a permanent
object depend on a temp object, the
As far as I know we are trying to kill two birds with one stone:
1. Reduce overhead of accessing temporary tables
2. Make it possible to create temporary tables on replica.
Replicas with hot-standby are widely used for running read-only OLAP queries.
But such queries usually stores intermediate
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> +1 for not moving such patches to the new CF until the author does
> something --- at which point they'd change to "Needs Review" state.
> But we should not change them into that state without author input.
> And I don't see
On 3/1/16 8:37 AM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
>We understood (IMHO is an interesting idea) but as Michael said hooks is
>for a general purpose. So can you demonstrate other use cases for this
>new hooks?
>
I can think of several usage. First, since the hook will always be
called, an extension
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> I'd suggest we either name it based on the current tentative
>>> date for CF1 (september), or name it
On 2 March 2016 at 07:07, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Craig Ringer wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/src/test/perl/TestLib.pm b/src/test/perl/TestLib.pm
> > index 3d11cbb..8c13655 100644
> > --- a/src/test/perl/TestLib.pm
> > +++ b/src/test/perl/TestLib.pm
> > @@ -112,9 +112,11 @@
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Yes, it's trivial to rename. That's the only advantage of our ugly url
> scheme which uses the surrogate key in the url instead of the actual name of
> the CF :)
2016-09 has been created then:
Hi,
On 03/01/2016 08:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 07:56:58PM +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
Note that I am not saying that other discussed approaches are any
better, I am saying that we should know approximately what we
actually want and not just beat FDWs with a hammer and
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
>> wrote:
>>> Hello, this is the second patch
I wrote:
> I believe the way to fix this would be to stop regarding SK_BT_MATCHED
> as state, and instead treat it as a scankey property identified during
> _bt_preprocess_keys, analogously to SK_BT_REQFWD/SK_BT_REQBKWD --- and,
> like those, you'd need two flags not one since the properties will
On 3/1/16 3:02 PM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
You mean for database wide vacuum?
I mean manual vacuum. Some hooks and stats would apply only to autovac
obviously (and it'd be nice to get visibility into the scheduling
decisions both daemons are making). But as much as possible things
should be
I'd always sort of assumed that the UTF_U2E() / UTF_E2U() macros in
pltcl.c were enabled by default. I just realized that that isn't so:
they're enabled by a test
#if defined(UNICODE_CONVERSION) && HAVE_TCL_VERSION(8,1)
UNICODE_CONVERSION is defined nowhere in our sources, and I can find no
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:15 AM, David Steele wrote:
>> On 3/1/16 3:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> David Steele writes:
I volunteered a while back to be the CFM and I
On 2 March 2016 at 05:46, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> I think we should change the existing psql method to be what you propose
> as psql_expert. I don't see any advantage in keeping the old one. Many
> of the existing uses of psql should become what you call
Hello, Andres
You have introduced a large replication progress tracking infrastructure
last year. And there is a problem described at the link in the quote below.
Attached patch fix this issue. Is this patch correct? I will be grateful
if it is and if it will be committed.
Thanks.
On
Hi
2016-02-29 2:40 GMT+01:00 Joe Conway :
> On 01/07/2016 09:08 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
> > On 01/06/2016 10:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think a design that was actually somewhat robust would require two
> >> hooks, one at check_role and one at assign_role, wherein the first
Hello, thank for testing this.
At Sat, 27 Feb 2016 17:19:05 +, 大山真実 wrote
in
> Hi!
>
> I'm interesting this patch and tested it. I found two strange thing.
>
> * Incorrect counting
>
>
Hi
2016-02-29 17:53 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule :
>
>
>
>> 0003 is the most controversial. It removes the ability to pass message
>> as keyword argument. My reasoning was that keyword arguments are
>> usually optional and configure extra aspects of the function call
>> while
Hello,
At Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:43:14 -0300, Alvaro Herrera
wrote in <20160226184314.GA205945@alvherre.pgsql>
> Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>
> > So, I'd like to propose four (or five) changes to this harness.
> >
> > - prove_check to remove all in tmp_check
> >
> > -
Hi,
Transaction function call sequence description in transam/README is slightly
outdated. Select now handled by PortalRunSelect instead of ProcessQuery. It is
also hard to follow what tabulation there means — sometimes that means
“function called by function”, sometimes it isn't. So I’ve also
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera <
> alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>> Yeah, we can do that. I'd suggest we either name it
Just pushed 0006.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
Victor Wagner writes:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:57:36 -0600
> Jim Nasby wrote:
>> Is there any backwards compatibility risk to these changes? Could
>> having that new info break someone's existing code?
> I don't think so. ErrorCode and ErrorInfo
Craig Ringer wrote:
> diff --git a/src/test/perl/TestLib.pm b/src/test/perl/TestLib.pm
> index 3d11cbb..8c13655 100644
> --- a/src/test/perl/TestLib.pm
> +++ b/src/test/perl/TestLib.pm
> @@ -112,9 +112,11 @@ INIT
> #
> sub tempdir
> {
> + my ($prefix) = @_;
> + $prefix = "tmp_test" if
On 01/03/2016 20:29, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 3/1/16 8:37 AM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>>> >
>>> >We understood (IMHO is an interesting idea) but as Michael said
>>> hooks is
>>> >for a general purpose. So can you demonstrate other use cases for this
>>> >new hooks?
>>> >
>> I can think of several
I wrote:
> If splitting the table into 3 fields, each smaller than 512MB:
>
> postgres=# create table big2 as select
> substring(binarycol from 1 for 300*1024*1024) as b1,
> substring(binarycol from 1+300*1024*1024 for 300*1024*1024) as b2 ,
> substring(binarycol from 1+600*1024*1024
Sorry to keep coming back to this, but I just realized that the next para
in _bt_preprocess_keys' doco explains yet another way in which this patch
is broken:
* Note that one reason we need direction-sensitive required-key flags is
* precisely that we may not be able to eliminate redundant
On 2/29/16 10:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby writes:
On 2/28/16 5:50 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
Per discussion in [1], this patch improves error reporting in pltcl.
I forgot to mention that this work is sponsored by Flight Aware
(http://flightaware.com).
Huh ... I
Craig Ringer wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I've been working with the new TAP tests for recovery and have a number of
> enhancements I'd like to make to the tooling to make writing tests easier
> and nicer.
I think we should change the existing psql method to be what you propose
as psql_expert. I don't
On 3/1/16 3:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Steele writes:
>> I volunteered a while back to be the CFM and I haven't seen any other
>> volunteers or objections to my offer.
>
>> I am still ready, eager, and willing!
>
> I haven't heard any other volunteers either. You have
"Daniel Verite" writes:
> I've tried adding another large field to see what happens if the whole row
> exceeds 2GB, and data goes to the client rather than to a file.
> My idea was to check if the client side was OK with that much data on
> a single COPY row, but it turns
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:15 AM, David Steele wrote:
> On 3/1/16 3:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> David Steele writes:
>>> I volunteered a while back to be the CFM and I haven't seen any other
>>> volunteers or objections to my offer.
>>
>>> I am still ready,
On 2 March 2016 at 10:07, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 2 March 2016 at 05:46, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I think we should change the existing psql method to be what you propose
>> as psql_expert. I don't see any advantage in keeping the old
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> OK, I will test it, sometime in this week.
>
I have tested this patch in my laptop, and there i did not see any
regression at 1 client
Shared buffer 10GB, 5 mins run with pgbench, read-only test
base
On March 1, 2016 8:41:33 PM PST, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Dilip Kumar
>wrote:
>
>>
>> OK, I will test it, sometime in this week.
>>
>
>I have tested this patch in my laptop, and there i did not see any
>regression at 1
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Sounds like a ppc vs. x86 issue. The regression was on the former, right?
Well, Regression what I reported last two time, out of that one was on X86
and other was on PPC.
Copied from older Threads
On 2 March 2016 at 13:22, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I wrote:
> >> > Can't use string ("Test::Builder") as a HASH ref while "strict refs"
> in use at
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 03/01/2016 08:00 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> As of now the MSVC scripts control if TAP tests are enabled or not
>> using a boolean flag as $config->{tap_tests}. However, this flag is
>> just taken into account in
On 2 March 2016 at 11:23, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Really, this time.
>
Really, really this time, the version in git that actually works, not a
format-patch'd version before I made a last fix. Sigh. I can't even blame
lack of coffee...
--
Craig Ringer
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:25 AM, David Steele wrote:
> Agreed. I see you created the new CF so no reason to keep it open.
OK. Done. May the force to manage all those patches be with you, manager.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 10:49:01AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:15 AM, David Steele wrote:
> >> On 3/1/16 3:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> David Steele
Michael Paquier writes:
> Yes, that's the problem. Instead of using details(), summary() is
> enough actually. And it is enough to let caller know the failure when
> just one test has been found as not passing. See attached.
This one works for me on RHEL6. Pushed;
On 3/1/16 8:49 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:15 AM, David Steele wrote:
>>> On 3/1/16 3:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
David Steele writes:
>
2016-03-02 6:57 GMT+08:00 Alvaro Herrera :
> Just pushed 0006.
>
>
This upset buildfarm members running prehistoric Perl versions because
is_passing was added after 5.8.8.
Fix attached.
I think I'm going to have to do an archaeology-grade Perl install, there's
just too
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> One thing that is slightly unclear is that whether there is any overhead
> due to buffer eviction especially when the buffer to be evicted is already
> dirty and needs XLogFlush(). One reason why it might not hurt is
Hi
2016-03-01 18:48 GMT+01:00 Catalin Iacob :
> On 3/1/16, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> I though about it before and I prefer variant with possibility to enter
> >> message as keyword parameter.
>
> That's also ok, but indeed with a check that it's
Craig Ringer writes:
> Really, really this time, the version in git that actually works, not a
> format-patch'd version before I made a last fix. Sigh. I can't even blame
> lack of coffee...
Hmm, still doesn't work for me: make check-world dies with
Can't use string
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wrote:
>> > Can't use string ("Test::Builder") as a HASH ref while "strict refs" in
>> > use at /usr/share/perl5/Test/Builder.pm line 1798.
>>
>> > The referenced line number is the end of the
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova
wrote:
> 01.03.2016 19:55, Anastasia Lubennikova:
>> It is not the final version, because it breaks pg_dump for previous
>> versions. I need some help from hackers here.
>> pgdump. line 5466
>> if
I think that you need to take a little broader look at this section.
> At the top, it says "To use any of these functions, you need to
> include the header file foreign/foreign.h in your source file", but
> this function is defined in foreign/fdwapi.h. It's not clear to me
> whether we should
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Fixing the pg_proc entries in HEAD seems like no big deal, but some of
> the errors are in contrib modules. If we wanted to be really clean
> about that, we'd have to bump those modules' extension versions, which
> is a
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Attached updated 5 patches.
> I would like to explain these patch shortly again here to make
> reviewing more easier.
>
> We can divided these patches into 2 purposes.
>
> 1. Freeze map
> 000_ patch adds additional
Craig Ringer writes:
> This upset buildfarm members running prehistoric Perl versions because
> is_passing was added after 5.8.8.
Sir, RHEL6 is not prehistoric ... and this is failing on my server too.
I'm not sure when "is_passing" was added, but it was later than 5.10.1.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Aleksander Alekseev <
a.aleks...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> Hello, Amit
>
> > I am not sure, if this is exactly what has been suggested by Robert,
> > so it is not straightforward to see if his suggestion can allow us to
> > use NUM_FREELISTS as 8 rather than 32. I
Hi all,
I have enabled yesterday the recovery test suite on hamster, and we
did not have to wait long before seeing the first failure on it, the
machine being slow as hell so it is quite good at catching race
conditions:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> I'm not sure what are the fancy things that Michael had in mind with
> exposing the private structure. Michael, was it something like having
> the ability to change some of these data through an extension?
I was referring to you here :)
I
On 2 March 2016 at 11:22, Craig Ringer wrote:
> 2016-03-02 6:57 GMT+08:00 Alvaro Herrera :
>
>> Just pushed 0006.
>>
>>
> This upset buildfarm members running prehistoric Perl versions because
> is_passing was added after 5.8.8.
>
> Fix attached.
On 02/03/16 17:01, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:25 AM, David Steele wrote:
Agreed. I see you created the new CF so no reason to keep it open.
OK. Done. May the force to manage all those patches be with you, manager.
May the Source be with you
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer writes:
>> This upset buildfarm members running prehistoric Perl versions because
>> is_passing was added after 5.8.8.
>
> Sir, RHEL6 is not prehistoric ... and this is failing on my server
Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Can't use string ("Test::Builder") as a HASH ref while "strict refs" in use
> > at /usr/share/perl5/Test/Builder.pm line 1798.
>
> > The referenced line number is the end of the file,
>
> Oh, scratch that; I was looking at the wrong file. Actually,
>
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:53 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 10:49:01AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:15 AM, David Steele
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> 0001-Change-behavior-...
>
> Changes of PostmasterNode.pm and TestLib.pm to add some
> features and change a behavior.
+ # Preserve temporary directory for this test if failure
+
On 2016/02/22 20:13, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
PFA update patch, which includes changes into postgresPlanDMLPushdown()
to check for join
condition before target columns and also fixed couple of whitespace issues.
For pushing down an UPDATE/DELETE on a foreign join to the remote, I
created a WIP
The basic point of this patch is to apply the generate-and-compare-Paths
paradigm to the planning steps after query_planner(), which only covers
...
> The present patch addresses this problem by inventing Path nodes to
> represent every post-scan/join step
I'm really glad to see that.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Julien Rouhaud
wrote:
>
> On 01/03/2016 07:50, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 4:38 AM, Julien Rouhaud
> > wrote:
> >> On 29/02/2016 20:20, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Mon,
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Dilip Kumar
> wrote:
>
>>
>
> Test2: Identify that improvement in case of multiextend is becuase of
> avoiding context switch or some other factor, like reusing
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
> The basic point of this patch is to apply the generate-and-compare-Paths
>> paradigm to the planning steps after query_planner(), which only covers
>>
> ...
> > The present patch addresses this problem by inventing Path
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:02 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>> Attached are rebased patches, split into 3 parts doing the following:
>> - 0001, fix default configuration of MSVC builds ignoring TAP tests
>
> BTW you keep submitting this one and I
On 01/03/2016 07:50, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 4:38 AM, Julien Rouhaud
> wrote:
>> On 29/02/2016 20:20, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Julien Rouhaud
>>>
Hi all,
As of now the MSVC scripts control if TAP tests are enabled or not
using a boolean flag as $config->{tap_tests}. However, this flag is
just taken into account in vcregress.pl, with the following issues:
1) config_default.pl does not list tap_tests, so it is unclear to
users to enable
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 03:34:39PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:53 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 10:49:01AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Michael Paquier
> >>
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:05 AM, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
Thanks for the review.
> The default value contains "scram". Shouldn't be here also:
>
>>Specifies a comma-separated list of supported password formats by
>>the server. Supported formats are
On 1 March 2016 at 05:30, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>
> On 29/02/16 03:23, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>
>>
> Sound reasonable?
>>
>
> I wonder if it would be acceptable to create new info flag for RM_SEQ_ID
> that would behave just like XLOG_SEQ_LOG but would be used only for the
>
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Dmitriy Sarafannikov
wrote:
> I have found incorrect error message in InitializeSessionUserId function
> if you try to connect to database by role Oid (for example
> BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnectionByOid).
> If role have no permissions to
I wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> Yes, that's the problem. Instead of using details(), summary() is
>> enough actually. And it is enough to let caller know the failure when
>> just one test has been found as not passing. See attached.
> This one works for me on
On 01/03/16 18:37, Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Janes writes:
Bisects down to:
606c0123d627b37d5ac3f7c2c97cd715dde7842f is the first bad commit
commit 606c0123d627b37d5ac3f7c2c97cd715dde7842f
Author: Simon Riggs
Date: Tue Nov 18 10:24:55 2014 +
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Indeed. My gcc 4.8.4 with --Wall does not show the warning, too bad.
>
> Attached is the fixed patch for the array method.
Committed with a few tweaks, including running pgindent over some of it.
--
Robert Haas
On 01/03/16 18:18, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
On 01.03.2016 19:03, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:19:45AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Two reasons:
1. There is no ideal implementation of DTM which will fit
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
> RegisterExtensibleNodeMethods() initializes its hash table
> with keysize=NAMEDATALEN, instead of EXTNODENAME_MAX_LEN.
>
> The attached patch fixes it.
Oops.
Thanks, committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB:
2016-03-01 15:45 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane :
> Pavel Stehule writes:
> > I don't understand how is possible to get more rows from Sort node than
> in
> > nested seq scan?
>
> The "extra" rows are re-fetches triggered by mark/restore requests from
> the
Greg Stark writes:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There are a couple of
>> regression test cases that change plans for the better, but it's sort of
>> accidental. Those cases look like
>>
>> select d.* from d left join (select * from b
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I guess that commit fest 2016-03 is going to begin soon, at which
> > point nobody will be able to add new patches because
> > 1) already closed CF don't accept
1 - 100 of 166 matches
Mail list logo