Re: [HACKERS] minor message improvement

On 8 May 2016 at 03:53, Euler Taveira wrote: Attached is a patch that turn it into one. > Applied, by Tom. Thanks -- Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Re: [HACKERS] Re: "pg_xxx" role name restriction not applied to bootstrap superuser?

* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > >> ... but I'm left with a policy question: should initdb disallow > >> bootstrap superuser names like "pg_xxx"? > > > On the whole, I'd vote to treat the bootstrap

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Disable BLOB test in pg_dump TAP tests

On 05/08/2016 12:52 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: Tom, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: Stephen Frost writes: Disable BLOB test in pg_dump TAP tests Buildfarm member jacana appears to have an issue with running this test. It's not entirely clear to me why, but rather

Re: [HACKERS] new tests post-feature freeze (was pgsql: Add TAP tests for pg_dump)

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> On 5/7/16 9:36 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> >Honestly, over the next couple of months between feature-freeze and >> >release, I'd like to add even more tests,

Re: [HACKERS] Re: "pg_xxx" role name restriction not applied to bootstrap superuser?

Stephen Frost writes: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> If we're going to enforce such a restriction, I think it would be >> a good thing for it to be in place in beta1. > Makes sense. > Patch attached. I'll push this in a bit, barring objections. Three minor

Re: [HACKERS] new tests post-feature freeze (was pgsql: Add TAP tests for pg_dump)

Robert Haas writes: > My suggestion is that, from this point forward, we add new tests to > 9.6 only if they are closely related to a bug that is getting fixed or > a feature that is new in 9.6. I think that's a reasonable compromise, > but what do others think? Yeah,

[HACKERS] Re: new tests post-feature freeze (was pgsql: Add TAP tests for pg_dump)

* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > Also, if we say that new tests are not features, that would mean that > they could be back-patched even after the release is out the door, and > generally I'm not in favor of that policy, except when we're adding a > test to a back-branch that is

Re: [HACKERS] Re: "pg_xxx" role name restriction not applied to bootstrap superuser?

* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > >> If we're going to enforce such a restriction, I think it would be > >> a good thing for it to be in place in beta1. > > > Makes sense. > > Patch attached. I'll push

Re: [HACKERS] Re: "pg_xxx" role name restriction not applied to bootstrap superuser?

* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > >> If we're going to enforce such a restriction, I think it would be > >> a good thing for it to be in place in beta1. > > > Makes sense. > > Patch attached. I'll push

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Disable BLOB test in pg_dump TAP tests

* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote: > TL;DR version: Msys provides a virtualized Unix-like file system > that is visible to its programs that you use to build, but invisible > to the programs you build since they are going to run without any > knowledge of the build environment. So you

Re: [HACKERS] minor message improvement

On 8 May 2016 at 12:48, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 8 May 2016 at 03:53, Euler Taveira wrote: > > Attached is a patch that turn it into one. >> > > Applied, by Tom. Thanks > Sorry about that; Tom's message only just arrived with me for some reason. --

Re: [HACKERS] force_parallel_mode uniqueness

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:42 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: > All of the other planner GUCs are basically, {on, off, special} with on or > special the default as appropriate for the feature - since most/all features > default to enabled. While I get that the expected

Re: [HACKERS] force_parallel_mode uniqueness

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:42 PM, David G. Johnston > wrote: > > All of the other planner GUCs are basically, {on, off, special} with on > or > > special the default as appropriate for the

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE lock downgrades have broken pg_upgrade

For what it's worth, for my historical sort benchmarks I got Postgres to build right back to 6.5 using modern tools. I have patches if anyone wants them. Pre-7.3 doesn't actually run because we didn't support 64-bit architectures before Tom did the V1 api (there was a set of Alpha patches floating

Re: [HACKERS] First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

[ I think you meant to attach this to the other thread, but anyway... ] "David G. Johnston" writes: > "...replacement_sort_tuples, which see for further details." needs > rewording. Hmm, "which see" is perfectly good English to my knowledge, and I'm not sure that

[HACKERS] parallel.c is not marked as test covered

The entire parallel.c reported test coverage is zero: http://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/access/transam/parallel.c.gcov.html It seem that it's not covered by the original 924bcf4f commit but I don't know if it's on purpose. This feature being really new that would be understandable. If

Re: [HACKERS] First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

On 09/05/16 08:56, Tom Lane wrote: [ I think you meant to attach this to the other thread, but anyway... ] "David G. Johnston" writes: "...replacement_sort_tuples, which see for further details." needs rewording. Hmm, "which see" is perfectly good English to my

Re: [HACKERS] First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

Gavin Flower writes: > On 09/05/16 08:56, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hmm, "which see" is perfectly good English to my knowledge, and I'm not >> sure that other possible ways of wording this would be less awkward. > To me the phrase "which see" is plain weird, at least in

Re: [HACKERS] pg9.6 segfault using simple query (related to use fk for join estimates)

Hi, Attached is a minor revision of the patch posted by David a few days ago, rebased on the current master (which already includes 68d704 fixing the segfault that started this thread). The modifications are fairly small: * The 'possibleRef' flag is renamed to 'use_for_estimation' which I

Re: [HACKERS] First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

On 09/05/16 10:22, Tom Lane wrote: Gavin Flower writes: On 09/05/16 08:56, Tom Lane wrote: Hmm, "which see" is perfectly good English to my knowledge, and I'm not sure that other possible ways of wording this would be less awkward. To me the phrase "which see"

Re: [HACKERS] A population of population counts

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > David Rowley writes: >> I'd like to see us using those functions, when they're available and >> falling back on the array when they're not. Sounds like that would >> just be a new configure test.

Re: [HACKERS] parallel.c is not marked as test covered

On 9 May 2016 at 09:12, Clément Prévost wrote: > The entire parallel.c reported test coverage is zero: > http://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/access/transam/parallel.c.gcov.html > > It seem that it's not covered by the original 924bcf4f commit but I don't > know if

Re: [HACKERS] parallel.c is not marked as test covered

David Rowley wrote: > I'm not entirely sure which machine generates that coverage output, > but the problem with it is that it's just one machine. We do have at > least one buildfarm member which runs with force_parallel_mode = > regress. It's not a buildfarm machine, but a machine setup

Re: [HACKERS] Stopping logical replication protocol

On 6 May 2016 at 23:23, Vladimir Gordiychuk wrote: > I prepare small patch that fix problems describe below. Now *WalSndWriteData > *first check message from consumer and during decode transaction check > that replication still active. KeppAlive message now not send if was get

Re: [HACKERS] parallel.c is not marked as test covered

On 9 May 2016 at 13:20, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > David Rowley wrote: > >> I'm not entirely sure which machine generates that coverage output, >> but the problem with it is that it's just one machine. We do have at >> least one buildfarm member which runs with

Re: [HACKERS] First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

On Sunday, May 8, 2016, Tom Lane wrote: > [ I think you meant to attach this to the other thread, but anyway... ] This is where the link to the online version was; reading the sgml and/or compiling ends up being a bit more than I wanted to do to review these. > > "David

Re: [HACKERS] parallel.c is not marked as test covered

David Rowley wrote: > On 9 May 2016 at 13:20, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > It's not a buildfarm machine, but a machine setup specifically for > > coverage reports. It runs "make check-world" only. I can add some > > additional command(s) to run, if somebody can suggest

Re: [HACKERS] Stopping logical replication protocol

On 6 May 2016 at 23:23, Vladimir Gordiychuk wrote: > I prepare small patch that fix problems describe below. Now *WalSndWriteData > *first check message from consumer and during decode transaction check > that replication still active. > OK, upon looking closer I'm not sure I

Re: [HACKERS] Reviewing freeze map code

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Joshua D. Drake >> wrote: >>> On 05/06/2016 01:58 PM, Stephen Frost

Re: [HACKERS] Stopping logical replication protocol

I've created a CF entry for this patch: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/621/ set as waiting-on-author. Vladimir, I didn't find a PostgreSQL community user account for you, so I couldn't set you up as the author. What's your PostgreSQL community username?

Re: [HACKERS] parallel.c is not marked as test covered

On 9 May 2016 at 14:26, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > David Rowley wrote: >> On 9 May 2016 at 13:20, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> > It's not a buildfarm machine, but a machine setup specifically for >> > coverage reports. It runs "make check-world"

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add TAP tests for pg_dump

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > I do think that now is a good time for people to be reviewing what's > been committed, which includes writing tests (either automated ones, > which can be included in our test suite, or one-off's for testing > specific

Re: [HACKERS] Reviewing freeze map code

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > fd31cd2 Don't vacuum all-frozen pages. - appendStringInfo(, _("pages: %u removed, %u remain, %u skipped due to pins\n"), + appendStringInfo(, _("pages: %u removed, %u remain, %u

Re: [HACKERS] pg9.6 segfault using simple query (related to use fk for join estimates)

On 9 May 2016 at 00:24, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Hi, > > Attached is a minor revision of the patch posted by David a few days ago, > rebased on the current master (which already includes 68d704 fixing the > segfault that started this thread). > > The modifications are

Re: [HACKERS] Reviewing freeze map code

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Joshua D. Drake > wrote: >> On 05/06/2016 01:58 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> >>> * Joshua D. Drake (j...@commandprompt.com) wrote: Yeah I thought