Re: [HACKERS] propose: detail binding error log

thanks for reply. Craig wrote: >> At the time PostgreSQL parses the statement it doesn't know the >> parameter values yet, because PgJDBC hasn't sent them to it. It >> cannot log them even if they mattered, which they don't. I know already that, so I wrote how can see error value at server log

Re: [HACKERS] amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Amit Langote wrote: >> Dunno about that. It's defining characteristic is that it checks child >> pages against their parent IMV. Things are not often defined in terms >> of their locking requirements. > > At the risk of sounding a bit verbose, do bt_check_level()

Re: [HACKERS] propose: detail binding error log

On 15 March 2016 at 15:06, Ioseph Kim wrote: > case 2: in jdbc program. > ERROR: 42804: column "a" is of type boolean but expression is of type > integer at character 25 > HINT: You will need to rewrite or cast the expression. > LOCATION: transformAssignedExpr, parse_target.c:529 > STATEMENT:

Re: [HACKERS] Background Processes and reporting

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:32 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2016-03-12 16:29:11 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Similarly for the wait event stuff - checkpointer, wal writer, > > > > background writer are in many cases proce

Re: [HACKERS] amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

Hi Peter, On 2016/03/15 16:11, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: >>> Dunno about that. It's defining characteristic is that it checks child >>> pages against their parent IMV. Things are not often defined in terms >>> of their locking requirements.

Re: [HACKERS] amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > Ah, I see the nuance. Thanks for the explanation. Maybe, > bt_index_check() and bt_index_parent_child_check() / > bt_index_check_parent_child(). IMHO, the latter more clearly highlights > the fact that parent/child relationships in the for

Re: [HACKERS] amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)

On 2016/03/15 16:42, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> By the way, one request (as a non-native speaker of English language, who >> ends up looking up quite a few words regularly) - >> >> Could we use "conform" or "correspond" instead of "comport"

[HACKERS] Missing conversion error handling in postgres_fdw

Hi, I noticed that this in make_tuple_from_result_row does conversion error handling only for the ordinary-column case (ie, errpos.cur_attno is set for that case, but not for the ctid case). /* convert value to internal representation */ if (i > 0) { /* ordinar

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] we have added support for box type in SP-GiST index

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:01 PM, David Steele wrote: > On 2/15/16 10:29 AM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: > > It's very pity but author is not able to continue work on this patch, >> and I would like to raise this flag. >> >> I'd like to add some comments about patches: >> >> traversalValue patch adds arb

Re: [HACKERS] Timeline following for logical slots

Hi, On 2016-03-14 20:10:58 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > diff --git a/src/backend/access/transam/xlogreader.c > b/src/backend/access/transam/xlogreader.c > index fcb0872..7b60b8f 100644 > --- a/src/backend/access/transam/xlogreader.c > +++ b/src/backend/access/transam/xlogreader.c > @@ -10,9 +1

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Only try to push down foreign joins if the user mapping OIDs mat

Here's patch which fixes the issue using Robert's idea. On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Robert Haas writes: > >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> I'm not really sold on enforcing that people cre

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCH] Integer overflow in timestamp[tz]_part() and date/time boundaries check

15.03.2016 03:21, Vitaly Burovoy: On 3/14/16, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote: 14.03.2016 16:23, David Steele: On 2/25/16 4:44 PM, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: Added to the commitfest 2016-03. [CF] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/540/ This looks like a fairly straight-forward bug fix (the size of

Re: [HACKERS] Timeline following for logical slots

Andres Freund wrote: > Could you perhaps wait till tomorrow? I'd like to do a pass over it. Sure thing. I'll wait for your review. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mai

Re: [HACKERS] Minor bug affecting ON CONFLICT lock wait log messages

On 15/03/2016 03:30, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> Attached patch fixes a bug reported privately by Stephen this morning. > > Bump. > > I would like to see this in the next point release. It shouldn't be > hard to review. > +

Re: [HACKERS] Timeline following for logical slots

On 15 March 2016 at 17:12, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi > Thanks very much for the review. This patch was split out from failover slots, which its self underwent quite a few revisions, so I'm really happy to have fresh eyes on it. Especially more experienced ones. > On 2016-03-14 20:10:58 -0300,

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

Hello, Here's a small docpatch to fix two typos in the new documentation. Regards, Thomas Le 11/03/2016 07:19, Amit Kapila a écrit : On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Robert Haas > wrote: > > > Committed with some further editing. In particular, the way you > de

Re: [HACKERS] Minor bug affecting ON CONFLICT lock wait log messages

* Julien Rouhaud (julien.rouh...@dalibo.com) wrote: > On 15/03/2016 03:30, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > >> Attached patch fixes a bug reported privately by Stephen this morning. > > > > Bump. > > > > I would like to see this in the next poin

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On 15 March 2016 at 13:48, David Rowley wrote: > An updated patch will follow soon. I've attached an updated patch which addresses some of Robert's and Tomas' concerns. I've not done anything about the exprCollation() yet, as I'm still unsure of what it should do. I just don't see why returning t

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Failover Slots

Here's a new failover slots rev, addressing the issues Oleksii Kliukin raised and adding a bunch of TAP tests. In particular, for the checkpoint issue I landed up moving CheckPointReplicationSlots to occur at the start of a checkpoint, before writing WAL is prohibited. As the comments note it's ju

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - allow backslash-continuations in custom scripts

I intend to have a look at it, I had a look at a previous instance, but I'm ok if someone wants to proceed. There's not exactly a long line of reviewers at the moment so if you could do a followup review that would be great. Ok. It is in the queue, not for right know, though. -- Fabien. -

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

On 10 March 2016 at 18:58, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Amit Kapila >>> wrote: >>> > Thanks for the suggestion. I have updated the patch to include >>> > w

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v6] GSSAPI encryption support

On 3/8/16 5:44 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote: > Here's yet another version of GSSAPI encryption support. OK, everything seems to be working fine with a 9.6 client and server so next I tested older clients and I got this error: $ /usr/lib/postgresql/9.1/bin/psql -h localhost \ -U vagr...@pgmasters.n

Re: [HACKERS] Minor bug affecting ON CONFLICT lock wait log messages

On 15/03/2016 14:18, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Julien Rouhaud (julien.rouh...@dalibo.com) wrote: >> On 15/03/2016 03:30, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: Attached patch fixes a bug reported privately by Stephen this morning. >>> >>> Bump. >>> >>

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

On 3/15/16 1:17 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:00 AM, David Steele >> This patch no longer applies cleanly: >> >> $ git apply ../other/group_update_clog_v6.patch >> error: patch failed: src/backend/storage/lmgr/proc.c:404 >> error: src/backend/storage/lmgr/proc.c: patch does

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

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 7:54 PM, David Steele wrote: > > On 3/15/16 1:17 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:00 AM, David Steele > > >> This patch no longer applies cleanly: > >> > >> $ git apply ../other/group_update_clog_v6.patch > >> error: patch failed: src/backend/storage

Re: [HACKERS] Fuzzy substring searching with the pg_trgm extension

On 3/14/16 12:27 PM, Artur Zakirov wrote: > On 14.03.2016 18:48, David Steele wrote: >> Hi Jeff, >> >> On 2/25/16 5:00 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: >> >>> But, It doesn't sound like I am going to win that debate. Given that, >>> I don't think we need a different name for the function. I'm fine with >>> e

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

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > I've finally pushed these, after making a number of mostly cosmetic > fixes. The only of real consequence is that I've removed the durable_* > call from the renames to .deleted in xlog[archive].c - these don't need > to be durable, and are win

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

On 15 March 2016 at 14:00, Thom Brown wrote: > On 10 March 2016 at 18:58, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Amit Kapila >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > Thanks for th

Re: [HACKERS] Fuzzy substring searching with the pg_trgm extension

On 15.03.2016 17:28, David Steele wrote: On 3/14/16 12:27 PM, Artur Zakirov wrote: On 14.03.2016 18:48, David Steele wrote: Hi Jeff, On 2/25/16 5:00 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: But, It doesn't sound like I am going to win that debate. Given that, I don't think we need a different name for the fun

Re: [HACKERS] Timeline following for logical slots

Craig already replied to most points. I think we can sum up as "we've done the best we can with what we have, maybe somebody can figure how to do better in the future but for now this works." Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-03-14 20:10:58 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > +#ifndef FRONTEND > > +

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch: fix warnings during compilation on FreeBSD

> Yeah. In practice, there are exactly two cases we care about: either > both of these functions will be declared in like POSIX > says, or both of them will be in . There's no need to > work harder than we have to do to figure that out. > > I'm totally unimpressed with the proposal of depending

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

David Steele wrote: > This patch no longer applies cleanly: > > $ git apply ../other/group_update_clog_v6.patch Normally "git apply -3" gives good results in these cases -- it applies the 3-way merge algorithm just as if you had applied the patch to the revision it was built on and later git-mer

Re: [HACKERS] Minor bug affecting ON CONFLICT lock wait log messages

Stephen Frost wrote: > * Julien Rouhaud (julien.rouh...@dalibo.com) wrote: > XLTW_InsertIndexUnique is used when building a unique index, but this is > just a check, and more to the point, it's actually a re-check of what > we're doing in nbinsert.c where we're already using XLTW_InsertIndex. > >

Re: [HACKERS] Minor bug affecting ON CONFLICT lock wait log messages

* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Julien Rouhaud (julien.rouh...@dalibo.com) wrote: > > > XLTW_InsertIndexUnique is used when building a unique index, but this is > > just a check, and more to the point, it's actually a re-check of what > > we're doing

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Integer overflow in timestamp[tz]_part() and date/time boundaries check

> On Mar 14, 2016, at 5:12 PM, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: > > On 3/14/16, Mark Dilger wrote: >> The first thing I notice about this patch is that >> src/include/datatype/timestamp.h >> has some #defines that are brittle. The #defines have comments explaining >> their logic, but I'd rather embed tha

Re: [HACKERS] Weighted Stats

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 04:37:36PM +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 1:50 PM, David Fetter wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 06:13:33PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: > >> On 11/2/15 5:46 PM, David Fetter wrote: > >> >I'd like to add weighted statistics to PostgreSQL > >> > >> Anyth

[HACKERS] PostgreSQL 9.6 Feature Freeze - April 8, 2016

At the recent PostgreSQL developer meeting in Brussels, a consensus was reached that an early beta, leading to an on-time release, would be very desirable. In particular, it was suggested that we should attempt to release PostgreSQL 9.6beta1 in May. The release management team has determined that

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Integer overflow in timestamp[tz]_part() and date/time boundaries check

> On Mar 15, 2016, at 8:35 AM, Mark Dilger wrote: > > >> On Mar 14, 2016, at 5:12 PM, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: >> >> On 3/14/16, Mark Dilger wrote: >>> The first thing I notice about this patch is that >>> src/include/datatype/timestamp.h >>> has some #defines that are brittle. The #defines ha

Re: [HACKERS] Add schema-qualified relnames in constraint error messages.

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Shulgin, Oleksandr" writes: > > What I dislike about this POC is all the disruption in libpq, to be > > honest. > > Yeah, I don't much like that either. But I don't think we can avoid > some refactoring there; as designed, conversion of an err

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

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Shulgin, Oleksandr" writes: > > Yes, I now recall that my actual concern was that sample_cnt may > calculate > > to 0 due to the latest condition above, but that also implies track_cnt > == > > 0, and then we have a for loop there which will not

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Valery Popov wrote: > make installcheck-world failed on several contrib modules: > dblink, file_fdw, hstore, pgcrypto, pgstattuple, postgres_fdw, tablefunc. > The tests results are attached. > Documentation looks good. > Where may be a problem with make check-world

Re: [HACKERS] Background Processes and reporting

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:57 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2016-03-14 16:16:43 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> > I have already shown [0, 1] the overhead of measuring timings in > linux on > >> > representative workload. AFAIK, these tests

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v6] GSSAPI encryption support

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:12 PM, David Steele wrote: > On 3/8/16 5:44 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote: >> Here's yet another version of GSSAPI encryption support. This looks far more stable than last versions, cool to see the progress. pgbench -C does not complain on my side so that's a good thing. This

Re: [HACKERS] Background Processes and reporting

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Alexander Korotkov < a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:57 AM, Robert Haas > wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Andres Freund >> wrote: >> > On 2016-03-14 16:16:43 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> > I have already shown [0, 1]

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch: fix warnings during compilation on FreeBSD

Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > Please note that these changes: > > ``` > -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) > +#define LARGE_OFF_T off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << > 31) << 31)) > ``` > > ... were generated but `autoreconf -iv`. I was not sure what to d

[HACKERS] Soliciting Feedback on Improving Server-Side Programming Documentation

Over the past few months, I've been familiarizing myself with postgres server side programming in C. My attempts to educate myself were slow and halting. The existing server side programming documentation has some examples, but those examples didn't show me how do what I wanted to do, and my resea

Re: [HACKERS] Soliciting Feedback on Improving Server-Side Programming Documentation

On 03/15/2016 10:02 AM, Corey Huinker wrote: Some of these things may seem obvious/trivial to you. I would argue that they're only obvious in retrospect, and the more obvious-to-you things we robustly document, the quicker we accumulate programmers who are capable of agreeing that it's obvious,

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

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 6:46 PM, David Steele wrote: > On 2/24/16 12:40 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> This has the merit to be clear, thanks for the input. Whatever the >> approach taken at the end we have two candidates: >> - Extend XLogInsert() with an extra argument for flags (Andres) >> - In

Re: [HACKERS] Soliciting Feedback on Improving Server-Side Programming Documentation

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Corey Huinker wrote: > Over the past few months, I've been familiarizing myself with postgres > server side programming in C. > > My attempts to educate myself were slow and halting. The existing server > side programming documentation has some examples, but those

Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > At Fri, 19 Feb 2016 22:27:00 +0900, Michael Paquier > wrote in > >> > Worth noting that this patch does not address the problem with index >> > relations when a TRUNCATE is used in the same transaction as its > > Focusing this issue,

Re: [HACKERS] Soliciting Feedback on Improving Server-Side Programming Documentation

> > > I think this is all great. You may find some automated assistance from > doxygen.postgresql.org . > > Sincerely, > > JD doxygen is great as far as it goes, but it does a great job of separating function definition from the comment explaining the function, so I have to drill into the raw sou

Re: [HACKERS] Soliciting Feedback on Improving Server-Side Programming Documentation

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Shulgin, Oleksandr < oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de> wrote: > There's also a good deal of README files in the source tree, so I would > add: > > 4. find src -name 'README*' > That too. But README's don't show up (easily) in a google search, so they elude discovery.

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch: fix warnings during compilation on FreeBSD

Aleksander Alekseev writes: > OK, I'm not an expert in Autotools but this patch (see attachment) seems > to solve a problem. I fooled around with this some. I felt originally that it should use AC_CHECK_DECL, but that turns out not to work because AC_CHECK_DECL has caching behavior built-in and

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

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2016/03/15 3:41, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Amit Langote >> wrote: >>> Instead, the attached patch adds a IndexBulkDeleteProgressCallback >>> which AMs should call for every block that's read (say, right before

Re: [HACKERS] Soliciting Feedback on Improving Server-Side Programming Documentation

On 03/15/2016 10:30 AM, Corey Huinker wrote: On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Shulgin, Oleksandr mailto:oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de>> wrote: There's also a good deal of README files in the source tree, so I would add: 4. find src -name 'README*' That too. But README's don't show

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.

14.03.2016 16:02, David Steele: Hi Anastasia, On 2/18/16 12:29 PM, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote: 18.02.2016 20:18, Anastasia Lubennikova: 04.02.2016 20:16, Peter Geoghegan: On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote: I fixed it in the new version (attached). Thank you fo

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

Hi Michael, On 3/14/16 7:07 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:32 PM, David Steele wrote: >> >>> Could you provide an updated set of patches for review? Meanwhile I am >>> marking this as "waiting for author".

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

Hi, On 03/14/2016 05:45 AM, David Rowley wrote: On 14 March 2016 at 15:20, David Rowley wrote: Current patch: I've now updated the patch to base it on top of the parallel aggregate patch in [2]. To apply the attached, you must apply [2] first! ... [2] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/c

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

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Hello, this is the new version of this patch. The CommitFest entry for this patch is messed up. It shows no author, even though I'm pretty sure that a patch has to have one by definition. https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/518/ Also,

Re: [HACKERS] Add numeric_trim(numeric)

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Here's a patch for the second function suggested in 5643125e.1030...@joh.to. > > I think this patch got useful feedback but we never saw a followup > version posted. I closed it as returned-with-feedback. Feel free to > submit a new versi

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

On 2016-03-15 15:39:50 +0100, Michael Paquier wrote: > I have finally been able to spend some time reviewing what you pushed > on back-branches, and things are in correct shape I think. One small > issue that I have is that for EXEC_BACKEND builds, in > write_nondefault_variables we still use one i

Re: [HACKERS] Soliciting Feedback on Improving Server-Side Programming Documentation

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 03/15/2016 10:30 AM, Corey Huinker wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Shulgin, Oleksandr >> mailto:oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de>> >> wrote: >> >> There's also a good deal of README files in the source tree, so I >>

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

On 3/15/16 10:39 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> Note that we currently have some frontend programs with the equivalent >> problem. Most importantly receivelog.c (pg_basebackup/pg_recveivexlog) >> are missing pretty much the same directory f

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE behind-the-scenes effects' CONTEXT

On 1/30/16 10:52 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > On 2016-01-21 04:17, Simon Riggs wrote: >> Marko, I was/am waiting for an updated patch. Could you comment please? > > Sorry, I've not found time to work on this recently. > > Thanks for everyone's comments so far. I'll move this to the next CF > and

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

On 3/15/16 1:42 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: >> Hello, this is the new version of this patch. > > The CommitFest entry for this patch is messed up. It shows no author, > even though I'm pretty sure that a patch has to have one by > definiti

[HACKERS] Re: [PATCH] fix DROP OPERATOR to reset links to itself on commutator and negator

Hi Kevin, On 3/1/16 11:08 AM, Roma Sokolov wrote: >> On 27 Feb 2016, at 03:46, Euler Taveira wrote: >> Because it is not a common practice to test catalog dependency on >> separate tests (AFAICS initial catalogs are tested with oidjoins.sql). >> Also, your test case is too huge for such a small u

Re: [HACKERS] Idle In Transaction Session Timeout, revived

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-03-08 16:42:37 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> - I really wonder if the decision to ignore sessions that are idle in >> transaction (aborted) should revisited. Consider this: >> >> rhaas=# begin; >> BEGIN >> rhaas=# lock table pg_class;

[HACKERS] Re: pg_hba_lookup function to get all matching pg_hba.conf entries

On 3/3/16 12:16 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: >> >> This patch needs to be applied on top discard_hba_and_ident_cxt patch >> that is posted earlier. > > Here I attached a re-based patch to the latest head with inclusion of > discard_hba_ident

Re: [HACKERS] Idle In Transaction Session Timeout, revived

On 2016-03-15 14:21:34 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2016-03-08 16:42:37 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >> - I really wonder if the decision to ignore sessions that are idle in > >> transaction (aborted) should revisited. Consider this: > >>

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench stats per script & other stuff

On 3/4/16 1:53 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: >>> That is why the "fs" variable in process_file is declared "static", >>> and why >>> I wrote "some hidden awkwarness". >>> >>> I did want to avoid a malloc because then who would free the struct? >>> addScript cannot to it systematically because builtins

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: function parse_ident

2016-03-14 17:39 GMT+01:00 Teodor Sigaev : > I afraid so I cannot to fix this inconsistency (if this is inconsistency - >> the >> binary values are same) - the parameter of function is raw string with >> processed >> escape codes, and I have not any information about original escape >> sequences.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Supporting +-Infinity values by to_timestamp(float8)

On 3/4/16 2:56 PM, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: > On 3/4/16, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote: > >> I think that you should update documentation. At least description of >> epoch on this page: >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/functions-datetime.html > > Thank you very much for pointing where i

Re: [HACKERS] Default Roles

* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Attached is a stripped-down version of the default roles patch which > > includes only the 'pg_signal_backend' default role. This provides the > > framework and structure for other default ro

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v6] GSSAPI encryption support

Michael Paquier writes: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:12 PM, David Steele wrote: >> On 3/8/16 5:44 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote: >>> Here's yet another version of GSSAPI encryption support. >> >> This looks far more stable than last versions, cool to see the >> progress. pgbench -C does not complain o

Re: [HACKERS] [NOVICE] WHERE clause not used when index is used

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:07 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > Later, I will add the tests we discovered here to index scans, so that > further optimization work is more easily possible. Please do. I would like to start testing the B-Tree code more exhaustively by adding a test suite to amcheck. This test

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v6] GSSAPI encryption support

Robbie, * Robbie Harwood (rharw...@redhat.com) wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: > > - maj_stat = gss_accept_sec_context( > > - &min_stat, > > + maj_stat = gss_accept_sec_context(&min_stat, > > > > This is just noise. > > You're not wrong, thoug

Re: [HACKERS] Choosing parallel_degree

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:25 PM, David Rowley wrote: > Over in [1] James mentioned about wanting more to be able to have more > influence over the partial path's parallel_degree decision. At risk > of a discussion on that hijacking the parallel aggregate thread, I > thought I'd start this for any

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 7:56 PM, David Rowley wrote: >> More generally, why are we inventing PartialAggref >> instead of reusing Aggref? The code comments seem to contain no >> indication as to why we shouldn't need all the same details for >> PartialAggref that we do for Aggref, instead of only

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch: fix warnings during compilation on FreeBSD

> Please verify that the committed version solves your problem on > FreeBSD. I confirm this patch solves a problem. > I've checked this on my OS X box, which turns out to have the > interesting property that xlocale.h declares wcstombs_l(), but only > if you previously included stdlib.h ... wtf?

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Thomas Reiss wrote: > Here's a small docpatch to fix two typos in the new documentation. Thanks, committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgr

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Thom Brown wrote: >> It turns out that I hate the fact that the Wait Event Name column is >> effectively in a random order. If a user sees a message, and goes to >> look up the value in the wait_event description table, they either >> have to search with their br

Re: FW: [HACKERS] [NOVICE] WHERE clause not used when index is used

On 3/15/16 2:28 PM, Jernigan, Kevin wrote: > I recently joined the product management team for AWS RDS Postgres > (after years at Oracle in their database team), and we are very > interested in confirming (or not) that the fix for the problem below > will be included in 9.5.2, and in the community’

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v6] GSSAPI encryption support

Stephen Frost writes: > Robbie, > > * Robbie Harwood (rharw...@redhat.com) wrote: >> Michael Paquier writes: >> > - maj_stat = gss_accept_sec_context( >> > - &min_stat, >> > + maj_stat = gss_accept_sec_context(&min_stat, >> > >> > This is just

Re: [HACKERS] Soliciting Feedback on Improving Server-Side Programming Documentation

I started a similar thread with probably similar concerns: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56d1a6aa.6080...@8kdata.com I believe this effort should be done. I added to my TODO list to compile a list of used functions in a selection of picked extensions to use that as a starting

Re: [HACKERS] Background Processes and reporting

> 15 марта 2016 г., в 19:57, Oleg Bartunov написал(а): > > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Alexander Korotkov > mailto:a.korot...@postgrespro.ru>> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:57 AM, Robert Haas > wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Andres Freu

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Thom Brown wrote: > >> It turns out that I hate the fact that the Wait Event Name column is > >> effectively in a random order. If a user sees a message, and goes to > >> look up the value in the wait_event description table, they either > >>

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Only try to push down foreign joins if the user mapping OIDs mat

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Here's patch which fixes the issue using Robert's idea. Please at least check your patches with 'git diff --check' before submitting them. And where it's not too much trouble, pgindent them. Or at least make them look something like what p

Re: [HACKERS] Missing conversion error handling in postgres_fdw

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > I noticed that this in make_tuple_from_result_row does conversion error > handling only for the ordinary-column case (ie, errpos.cur_attno is set > for that case, but not for the ctid case). > > /* convert value to internal representa

Re: [HACKERS] Soliciting Feedback on Improving Server-Side Programming Documentation

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: > > I started a similar thread with probably similar concerns: > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56d1a6aa.6080...@8kdata.com > > I believe this effort should be done. I added to my TODO list to > compile a list of used

[HACKERS] Show dropped users' backends in pg_stat_activity

I was looking into some issues we recently had when dropping db users and was surprised to see that dropped users' sessions and transactions continue to work after the role is dropped. Since dropping a role requires dropping all grants it has (using DROP OWNED BY ...) the dropped role can't st

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 16 March 2016 at 06:39, Tomas Vondra wrote: > After looking at the parallel aggregate patch, I also looked at this one, as > it's naturally related. Sadly I haven't found any issue that I could nag > about ;-) The patch seems well baked, as it was in the oven for quite a long > time already. T

[HACKERS] Fix typos in comments

Attached a patch to fix a bunch of typos in comments. / Oskari >From 1effab7d75c3ac08257c637d8662b4c8b3fdc750 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Oskari Saarenmaa Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 23:45:26 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] misc typofixes in comments --- contrib/pgcrypto/sha1.h| 2

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On 16 March 2016 at 09:23, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 7:56 PM, David Rowley > wrote: >> A comment does explain this, but perhaps it's not good enough, so I've >> rewritten it to become. >> >> /* >> * PartialAggref >> * >> * When partial aggregation is required in a plan, the

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench stats per script & other stuff

Fabien COELHO wrote: > >If somebody specifies thousands of -f switches, they will waste a few > >bytes with each, but I'm hardly concerned about a few dozen kilobytes > >there ... > > Ok, so you prefer a memory leak. I hate it on principle. I don't "prefer" memory leaks -- I prefer interfaces th

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 5:50 PM, David Rowley wrote: >> I still think that's solving the problem the wrong way. Why can't >> exprType(), when applied to the Aggref, do something like this? >> >> { >> Aggref *aref = (Aggref *) expr; >> if (aref->aggpartial) >> return aref->aggtrans

[HACKERS] NOT LIKE index support

I noticed index support for NOT LIKE is missing. Is there a special reason for that, or would a patch be accepted? A use case would be: ... WHERE url NOT LIKE 'http%' Or ... WHERE path NOT LIKE '/%'

Re: [HACKERS] Fix typos in comments

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Oskari Saarenmaa wrote: > Attached a patch to fix a bunch of typos in comments. Committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make

Re: [HACKERS] Minor bug affecting ON CONFLICT lock wait log messages

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Agreed. I'm going to play with it a bit more but barring objections, > I'll commit and back-patch Peter's patch. Thanks for taking care of this, Stephen. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgre

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On 16 March 2016 at 11:00, Robert Haas wrote: > I don't see why we would need to leave aggpartial out of the equals() > check. I must be missing something. See fix_combine_agg_expr_mutator() This piece of code: /* * Aggrefs for partial aggregates are wrapped up in a PartialAggref, * we need to

Re: [HACKERS] NOT LIKE index support

On 03/15/2016 11:01 PM, Arjen Nienhuis wrote: I noticed index support for NOT LIKE is missing. Is there a special reason for that, or would a patch be accepted? A use case would be: ... WHERE url NOT LIKE 'http%' Or ... WHERE path NOT LIKE '/%' My guess is the lack of many compelling use ca

  1   2   >