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 the value of having the
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 r
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
ch
2016-03-01 20:17 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby :
> 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
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 will
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 r
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 and DESC columns may b
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.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent
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
> > > point nobody will be
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 specificaly "9.7-first" or
>>> something like tha
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
> > so
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 tentative
date for CF1 (september), or name it
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 "9.7-first" or
>>> something like that rather th
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 based on the
> current
> >>> tentative date
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 usage.
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 plitted out. This allows
>>> multibyte names to be completed in psql.
>>>
>>> At Fri, 06
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 the conn, sir.
Aye ay
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 b
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 use that site. There's PG a
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 do
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 f
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 keys.
"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 out that the server is no
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 se
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, eager, and willing!
>>
>> I haven't heard a
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:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pg
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 mechanisms present in the Tcl
> for ages. As far a
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 (
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
indi
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 h
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 @@ INIT
> > #
> > sub tempdi
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:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/
People, f
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 haven't seen any other
volunteers or objections to my offer.
>>>
>>
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 psql_check; but
> we should probably
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 vcregress.pl, with the
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:
> I volunteered a while back to be the CFM and I haven't seen any other
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 pain in the rear. Since
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 frozen bit into visibilit
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 much to keep an eye on man
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.
>
Really, this time.
--
Craig Ringer
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 http://www.2ndQuadrant.co
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 one. Many
>> of the existing uses of psql should be
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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes
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 Luke^H^H^H^HMichael!
--
Sen
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.
> Fix attached.
Will
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
basepatch
run122187 2
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
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 too.
> I'm not sure when "is_passing" was ad
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 not specified twice
> which I see you already adde
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 ("Test::Builder") as a HASH r
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 that by
> the time we trie
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:
http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=hamster&dt=2016-03-01%
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 client
>
>Shared buffer 10GB, 5 mins run with pg
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,
> /usr/share/pe
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 file,
>>
>> Oh, scratch tha
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
--
O
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 /usr/share/perl5/Test/Builder.pm line 1798.
> >>
> >> > The referen
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 (fout->remoteVersion >= 90400)
>>
>> What does
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 writes:
> I volunteered a while back to be the CFM a
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; we'll see if the older
buildfar
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 cons
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 h
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 wrote:
>> >> On 3/1/16 3:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >>> David Steel
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 login, you will see er
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
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:15 AM, David
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 curre
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
> nontransactional updates
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 RHEL6. Pushed; we'll see if th
101 - 169 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
