[HACKERS] Typo in monitoring.sgml

Attached fixes a minor typo as follows: s/index vacuums cycles/index vacuum cycles/g Thanks, Amit diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml index 7055c37..cb22afb 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml @@ -2594,7 +2594,7 @@

Re: [HACKERS] Choosing parallel_degree

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > > I'm not too familiar with parallel planning, but I tried to implement > both in attached patch. I didn't put much effort into the > parallel_threshold GUC documentation, because I didn't really see a good >

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

On 16 March 2016 at 01:02, Corey Huinker wrote: > #1 git grep is a helpful reflex for discovering examples on my own, but it > requires that I have a term to search on in the first place, and too often > I don't know what I don't know. > Yep. This can be painful when

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

Mmm. Have I broken the entry? At Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:55:24 -0400, David Steele wrote in <56e84c8c.7060...@pgmasters.net> > On 3/15/16 1:42 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > > wrote: > >> Hello,

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

Hello, # It seems that I have been forgotten in the recepient list.. At Tue, 15 Mar 2016 22:09:59 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote in <56e8c077.2000...@gmx.net> > On 2/5/16 3:09 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > I considered how to make tab-completion robust for syntactical > >

Re: [HACKERS] Missing conversion error handling in postgres_fdw

On 2016/03/16 5:55, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: Attached is a patch for that. Hmm, I'd say you are right. Committed. Thank you for taking care of this! Best regards, Etsuro Fujita -- Sent via pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] multivariate statistics v14

I apology if it's already discussed. I am new to this patch. > Attached is v15 of the patch series, fixing this and also doing quite a > few additional improvements: > > * added some basic examples into the SGML documentation > > * addressing the objectaddress omissions, as pointed out by

Re: [HACKERS] syslog configurable line splitting behavior

On 3/8/16 9:12 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > I have one nitpick: why is one of the variables "true" while the other > is "on" in the example? I think both should be "on". > > #syslog_sequence_numbers = true > #syslog_split_lines = on > > Another possible improvement would be to change "Split

Re: [HACKERS] multivariate statistics v14

> Instead of simply multiplying the ndistinct estimate with selecticity, > we instead use the formula for the expected number of distinct values > observed in 'k' rows when there are 'd' distinct values in the bin > > d * (1 - ((d - 1) / d)^k) > > This is 'with replacements' which seems

Re: [HACKERS] Relaxing SSL key permission checks

On 3/10/16 9:20 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 3/4/16 3:55 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> * it failed to check for S_IXUSR, so permissions 0700 were okay, in >> contradiction with what the error message indicates. This is a >> preexisting bug actually. Do we want to fix it by preventing a >>

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

On 2/5/16 3:09 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > I considered how to make tab-completion robust for syntactical > noises, in other words, optional words in syntax. Typically "IF > (NOT) EXISTS", UNIQUE and TEMPORARY are words that don't affect > further completion. To repeat the question I raised in

Re: [HACKERS] insufficient qualification of some objects in dump files

On 2/26/16 1:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > As the patch is presented, I agree with Peter that it does not really > need a format number bump. The question that has to be answered is > whether this solution is good enough? You could not trust it for > automated processing of tags --- it's easy to

Re: [HACKERS] Choosing parallel_degree

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:45 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 16 March 2016 at 13:26, Julien Rouhaud wrote: >> On 15/03/2016 21:12, Robert Haas wrote: >>> I thought about this a bit more. There are a couple of easy things we >>> could do

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 9:23 PM, David Rowley wrote: >>> Should I update the patch to use the method you describe? >> >> Well, my feeling is that is going to make this a lot smaller and >> simpler, so I think so. But if you disagree strongly, let's discuss >>

Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

Thank you for the comment. I understand that this is not an issue in a hurry so don't bother to reply. At Tue, 15 Mar 2016 18:21:34 +0100, Michael Paquier wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] pam auth - add rhost item

On 3/10/16 8:11 AM, Grzegorz Sampolski wrote: > In attchment new patch with updated documentation and with small change > to coding style as you suggested. This patch seems fine. I'm not sure about the name "pamusedns" for the option, since we use the OS resolver, which might not actually use

Re: [HACKERS][PROPOSAL] Covering + unique indexes.

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Does this work with amcheck? Maybe it works with bt_index_check(), but > not bt_index_parent_check()? I think that you need to make sure that > _bt_compare() knows about this, too. That's because it isn't good > enough to

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On 16 March 2016 at 14:08, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:55 PM, David Rowley > wrote: >> On 16 March 2016 at 13:42, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:04 PM, David Rowley >>>

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

Synchronous replication offers the ability to confirm that all changes -made by a transaction have been transferred to one synchronous standby -server. This extends the standard level of durability +made by a transaction have been transferred to one or more synchronous

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:55 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 16 March 2016 at 13:42, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:04 PM, David Rowley >> wrote: >>> On 16 March 2016 at 12:58, Robert Haas

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

On 2016/03/16 2:33, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> On 2016/03/15 3:41, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Well, I think you need to study the index AMs and figure this out. >> >> OK. I tried to put calls to the callback in

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On 16 March 2016 at 13:42, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:04 PM, David Rowley > wrote: >> On 16 March 2016 at 12:58, Robert Haas wrote: >>> ...and why would one be true and the other false? >> >> One

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:04 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 16 March 2016 at 12:58, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 6:55 PM, David Rowley >> wrote: >>> On 16 March 2016 at 11:00, Robert Haas

Re: [HACKERS] Choosing parallel_degree

On 16 March 2016 at 13:26, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > On 15/03/2016 21:12, Robert Haas wrote: >> I thought about this a bit more. There are a couple of easy things we >> could do here. >> >> The 1000-page threshold could be made into a GUC. >> >> We could add a per-table

Re: [HACKERS] Choosing parallel_degree

On 15/03/2016 21:12, Robert Haas wrote: > 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

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql - DECLARE - cannot to use %TYPE or %ROWTYPE for composite types

Pavel Stehule writes: >> Robert Haas writes: >>> That's not a dumb idea. I think %TYPE is an Oracle-ism, and it >>> doesn't seem to have been their best-ever design decision. > Using %TYPE has sense in PostgreSQL too. It's certainly useful

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] speeding up GIN build with parallel workers

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:42:26 -0400 David Steele wrote: > On 2/18/16 10:10 AM, Constantin S. Pan wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 23:01:47 +0300 > > Oleg Bartunov wrote: > > > >> My feedback is (Mac OS X 10.11.3) > >> > >> set gin_parallel_workers=2; > >>

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

On 03/08/2016 10:42 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Vik Fearing wrote: >> Attached is a rebased and revised version of my >> idle_in_transaction_session_timeout patch from last year. >> >> This version does not suffer the problems the old one did

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On 16 March 2016 at 12:58, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 6:55 PM, David Rowley > wrote: >> On 16 March 2016 at 11:00, Robert Haas wrote: >>> I don't see why we would need to leave aggpartial out of the

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregate

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 6:55 PM, David Rowley wrote: > 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

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

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

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

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

[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] 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)

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

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 >> * >>

[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

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

[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

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 >

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). > > /*

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

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,

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 > > wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:57 AM, Robert Haas

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] [PATCH v6] GSSAPI encryption support

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

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

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

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

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] 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

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 >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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] 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.

[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

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=#

[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

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

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] 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

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 >> > >> wrote: >> >> There's also a

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

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

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.

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]

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?

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

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 > wrote: There's also a good deal of README files in the source tree, so I would add: 4. find src -name 'README*'

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

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

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] 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

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

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

[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

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] 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

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

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

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

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 > >> >

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] 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 > == > >

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

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 >>>

[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

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

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

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

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] 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

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

  1   2   >