Re: [HACKERS] OpenSSL 1.1 breaks configure and more

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > I planned to commit this today, but while reading through it and testing, I > ended up doing a bunch more changes, so this deserves another round of > review. OK, I am giving it a try. Note to people using OSX: at

Re: [HACKERS] 9.6 TAP tests and extensions

This was wrong for out-of-tree builds, updated. Still pending fix for PG_REGRESS path when invoked using $(prove_check) from PGXS -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services From

Re: [HACKERS] Push down more full joins in postgres_fdw

> > 3. I think registerAlias stuff should happen really at the time of >> creating paths and should be stored in fpinfo. Without that it >> will be >> computed every time we deparse the query. This means every time >> we try >> to EXPLAIN the query

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables

On 2016/09/09 18:47, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > A related change is renaming RangeBound structure in Amit > Langote's patches to PartitionRangeBound to avoid name conflict with > rangetypes.h. That change too should vanish once we decide where to keep > that structure and its final name. This change

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup, pg_receivexlog and data durability (was: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions)

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > In fsync_pgdata(), you have removed the progname from one error > message, even though it is passed into the function. Right. Good catch. > Also, I think > fsync_pgdata() should not be printing initdb's

[HACKERS] 9.6 TAP tests and extensions

Hi all While updating an extension for 9.6 I noticed that while the $(prove_check) definition is exposed for use by PGXS in Makefile.global, extensions can't actually use the TAP tests because we don't install the required Perl modules like PostgresNode.pm. I don't see any reason not to make

Re: [HACKERS] 9.6 TAP tests and extensions

On 2016-09-13 10:54:01 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > [zap] Uhm, empty email ;) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] 9.6 TAP tests and extensions

-- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:58 AM, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > On 13/09/16 01:20, Jesper Pedersen wrote: >> >> On 09/01/2016 11:55 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> >>> I have fixed all other issues you have raised. Updated patch is >>> attached with this mail. >>> >> >> The

Re: [HACKERS] Supporting SJIS as a database encoding

At Thu, 8 Sep 2016 07:09:51 +, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" wrote in <0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F5E7D4A@G01JPEXMBYT05> > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Kyotaro > > HORIGUCHI > > > > $

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

Hello, At Sat, 10 Sep 2016 07:40:16 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup, pg_receivexlog and data durability (was: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions)

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-09-13 10:35:38 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Craig Ringer >> wrote: >> > We need it for tap tests. More and more will use pg_basebackup and it'll

Re: [HACKERS] An extra error for client disconnection on Windows

Hello, thanks for revewing and the discussion. At Sat, 10 Sep 2016 10:44:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in <17326.1473518...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > Michael Paquier writes: > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> So this

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup, pg_receivexlog and data durability (was: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions)

On 2016-09-13 10:35:38 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Craig Ringer > wrote: > > We need it for tap tests. More and more will use pg_basebackup and it'll > > start hurting test speeds badly. > > Ah yes, that's a good argument.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup, pg_receivexlog and data durability (was: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions)

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > We need it for tap tests. More and more will use pg_basebackup and it'll > start hurting test speeds badly. Ah yes, that's a good argument. hamster would suffer pretty badly after that if nothing is done. I'll

Re: [HACKERS] Let file_fdw access COPY FROM PROGRAM

On 2016/09/13 2:01, Corey Huinker wrote: > Thanks for the review! > > I agree with all the code cleanups suggested and have made then in the > attached patch, to save the committer some time. Thanks. Have already marked the patch as ready for the committer. > Also in this patch, I changed sgml

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

On 13 September 2016 at 06:03, Petr Jelinek wrote: > Oh sure, I don't see that as big problem, the TupleData already contains > type of the data it sends (to distinguish between nulls and text data) so > that's mostly about adding some different type there and we'll also

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

On 2016-09-12 20:15:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2016-09-12 16:56:32 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > >> Attached is a noticeably expanded set of tests, with fixes for the stuff > >> you'd found. I plan to push that soon-ish. Independent of the

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-09-12 16:56:32 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: >> Attached is a noticeably expanded set of tests, with fixes for the stuff >> you'd found. I plan to push that soon-ish. Independent of the approach >> we'll be choosing, increased coverage seems

Re: [HACKERS] identity columns

On 9/12/16, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Thank you for this extensive testing. I will work on getting the bugs > fixed. Just a couple of comments on some of your points: > > On 9/9/16 11:45 PM, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: >> It compiles and passes "make check" tests,

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Exclude additional directories in pg_basebackup

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Add some tests. At least test that one entry from the directory list > and one entry from the files list is not contained in the backup > result. Testing the symlink handling would also be good. (The >

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

On 2016-09-12 16:56:32 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-09-12 09:14:47 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2016-09-12 10:19:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Andres Freund writes: > > > > > > > 0001-Add-some-more-targetlist-srf-tests.patch > > > > Add some test. > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

On 2016-09-12 09:14:47 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-09-12 10:19:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund writes: > > > > > 0001-Add-some-more-targetlist-srf-tests.patch > > > Add some test. > > > > I think you should go ahead and push this tests-adding patch

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

On 2016-09-12 19:35:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> You're inventing objections. > > > Heh, it's actually your own objection ;) > > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/32673.1464023429%40sss.pgh.pa.us > > I'm changing my opinion in the light of unfavorable evidence. Is that > wrong? Nah,

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-09-12 18:35:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> You're inventing objections. > Heh, it's actually your own objection ;) > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/32673.1464023429%40sss.pgh.pa.us I'm changing my opinion in the light of unfavorable

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

Hi, On 2016-09-12 18:35:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > I don't think it'd be all that hard to add something like the current > > LCM behaviour into nodeFunctionscan.c if we really wanted. But I think > > it'll be better to just say no here. > > "Just

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-09-12 17:36:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Um, I dunno. You've added half a thousand lines of not-highly-readable- >> nor-extensively-commented code to the planner; that certainly reaches *my* >> threshold of pain. > Well, I certainly plan (and

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes

On 13/09/16 01:20, Jesper Pedersen wrote: On 09/01/2016 11:55 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: I have fixed all other issues you have raised. Updated patch is attached with this mail. The following script hangs on idx_val creation - just with v5, WAL patch not applied. Are you sure it is actually

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

On 2016-09-12 17:36:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2016-09-12 13:26:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Stepping back a little bit ... way back at the start of this thread > >> you muttered about possibly implementing tSRFs as a special pipeline > >> node

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

On 12/09/16 22:21, Andres Freund wrote: On 2016-09-12 21:57:39 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 12/09/16 21:54, Andres Freund wrote: On 2016-09-12 21:47:08 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 09/09/16 06:33, Peter Eisentraut wrote: The start_replication option pg_version option is not documented

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-09-12 13:26:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Stepping back a little bit ... way back at the start of this thread >> you muttered about possibly implementing tSRFs as a special pipeline >> node type, a la Result. That would have the same benefits in

Re: [HACKERS] identity columns

Thank you for this extensive testing. I will work on getting the bugs fixed. Just a couple of comments on some of your points: On 9/9/16 11:45 PM, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: > It compiles and passes "make check" tests, but fails with "make check-world" > at: > test foreign_data ...

Re: [HACKERS] feature request: explain "with details" option

Robert Haas writes: > I think the only part of this that would be really brutal to try to > represent is alternative join orders. I see no reasonable way for > EXPLAIN to output useful information about what other join orders were > considered and why they were not chosen;

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

On 2016-09-12 21:57:39 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 12/09/16 21:54, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2016-09-12 21:47:08 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > > > On 09/09/16 06:33, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > > The start_replication option pg_version option is not documented and > > > > not used in any

Re: [HACKERS] feature request: explain "with details" option

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Craig Ringer writes: >> On 9 September 2016 at 01:40, Roger Pack wrote: >>> Today's explain tells us what loops and scans were used, and relative >>> costs, etc. It doesn't seem

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

On 12/09/16 21:54, Andres Freund wrote: On 2016-09-12 21:47:08 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 09/09/16 06:33, Peter Eisentraut wrote: The start_replication option pg_version option is not documented and not used in any later patch. We can probably do without it and just rely on the protocol

Re: [HACKERS] inappropriate use of NameGetDatum macro

Mark Dilger writes: > there are several places in the code where variables defined as > (char *) or as (const char *) are passed to the NameGetDatum() > macro. I believe it would be better form to use CStringGetDatum() > in these locations. I am aware that these two

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

On 2016-09-12 21:47:08 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 09/09/16 06:33, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > The start_replication option pg_version option is not documented and > > not used in any later patch. We can probably do without it and just > > rely on the protocol version. > > > > That's

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

On 09/09/16 06:33, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Review of 0003-Define-logical-replication-protocol-and-output-plugi.patch: (This is still based on the Aug 31 patch set, but at quick glance I didn't see any significant changes in the Sep 8 set.) Yep. The start_replication option pg_version

[HACKERS] inappropriate use of NameGetDatum macro

Friends, there are several places in the code where variables defined as (char *) or as (const char *) are passed to the NameGetDatum() macro. I believe it would be better form to use CStringGetDatum() in these locations. I am aware that these two macros are internally the same.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 8/19/16 1:04 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> I agree with adding this as an option and removing directory by default. >> And it looks good to me except for missing new line in usage output. >> >> printf(_(" -l, --label=LABEL set

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

On 8/19/16 1:04 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > I agree with adding this as an option and removing directory by default. > And it looks good to me except for missing new line in usage output. > > printf(_(" -l, --label=LABEL set backup label\n")); > + printf(_(" -n, --noclean

Re: [HACKERS] Tuplesort merge pre-reading

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Here's a fixed version. I'll go through Peter's comments and address those, > but I don't think there was anything there that should affect performance > much, so I think you can proceed with your benchmarking with

Re: [HACKERS] Tuplesort merge pre-reading

On 09/12/2016 06:47 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Here's a new version of these patches, rebased over current master. I squashed the two

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Exclude additional directories in pg_basebackup

The comments on excludeDirContents are somewhat imprecise. For example, none of those directories are actually removed or recreated on startup, only the contents are. The comment for pg_replslot is incorrect. I think you can copy replication slots just fine, but you usually don't want to. What

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

On 2016-09-12 14:05:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2016-09-12 13:48:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Andres Freund writes: > >>> I kind of like ROWS FROM (... AS VALUE), that seems to confer the > >>> meaning quite well. As VALUE

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-09-12 13:48:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Andres Freund writes: >>> I kind of like ROWS FROM (... AS VALUE), that seems to confer the >>> meaning quite well. As VALUE isn't a reserved keyword, that'd afaik only >>> really

Re: [HACKERS] ICU integration

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 6:39 AM, Dave Page wrote: > Looking back at my old emails, apparently ICU 5.0 and later include > ucol_strcollUTF8() which avoids the need to convert UTF-8 characters > to 16 bit before sorting. RHEL 6 has the older 4.2 version of ICU. At the risk of

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

On 2016-09-12 13:48:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2016-09-12 13:26:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Andres Freund writes: > > On 2016-09-12 12:10:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I can't say that I like the proposed syntax much. >

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-09-12 13:26:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-09-12 12:10:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I can't say that I like the proposed syntax much. >>> Me neither. But I haven't really found a better

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

On 2016-09-12 13:26:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2016-09-12 12:10:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I can't say that I like the proposed syntax much. > > > Me neither. But I haven't really found a better approach. It seems > > kinda consistent to

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

Hi, On 2016-09-12 13:26:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2016-09-12 12:10:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I can't say that I like the proposed syntax much. > > > Me neither. But I haven't really found a better approach. It seems > > kinda consistent

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-09-12 12:10:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I can't say that I like the proposed syntax much. > Me neither. But I haven't really found a better approach. It seems > kinda consistent to have ROWS FROM (... AS ()) change the picked out > columns to

Re: [HACKERS] Let file_fdw access COPY FROM PROGRAM

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2016/09/11 8:04, Corey Huinker wrote: > > V2 of this patch: > > > > Changes: > > * rebased to most recent master > > * removed non-tap test that assumed the existence of Unix sed program > > * added non-tap

Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

Hi, On 09/07/2016 05:58 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: Okay, I have fixed this issue as explained above. Apart from that, I have fixed another issue reported by Mark Kirkwood upthread and few other issues found during internal testing by Ashutosh Sharma. The locking issue reported by Mark and

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

Hi, On 2016-09-12 12:10:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > 0003-Avoid-materializing-SRFs-in-the-FROM-list.patch > > To avoid performance regressions from moving SRFM_ValuePerCall SRFs to > > ROWS FROM, nodeFunctionscan.c needs to support not

Re: [HACKERS] OpenSSL 1.1 breaks configure and more

On 09/05/2016 02:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 09/05/2016 03:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Judging by the number of people who have popped up recently with their own OpenSSL 1.1 patches, I think there is going to be a lot of demand for back-patching some sort of 1.1 support into our back

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

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > I attach my V3. I should point out that I'm leaving to go on Vacation this weekend. I'll be away for a week, and will not be answering mail during that period. If anyone has any questions on this for me, it might be

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-09-12 11:29:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm on board with disallowing SRFs in UPDATE, because it produces >> underdetermined and unspecified results; but the other restriction >> seems 100% arbitrary. There is no semantic difference between >>

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

On 2016-09-12 11:29:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > 0002-Shore-up-some-weird-corner-cases-for-targetlist-SRFs.patch > > Forbid UPDATE ... SET foo = SRF() and ORDER BY / GROUP BY containing > > SRFs that would change the number of returned rows.

Re: [HACKERS] Let file_fdw access COPY FROM PROGRAM

Thanks for the review! I agree with all the code cleanups suggested and have made then in the attached patch, to save the committer some time. Also in this patch, I changed sgml para to Changing table-level options requires superuser privileges, for security reasons: only a superuser

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

On 2016-09-12 10:19:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > > 0001-Add-some-more-targetlist-srf-tests.patch > > Add some test. > > I think you should go ahead and push this tests-adding patch now, as it > adds documentation of the current behavior that is a

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

Andres Freund writes: > 0003-Avoid-materializing-SRFs-in-the-FROM-list.patch > To avoid performance regressions from moving SRFM_ValuePerCall SRFs to > ROWS FROM, nodeFunctionscan.c needs to support not materializing > output. Personally I'd put this one later, as it's

Re: [HACKERS] Tuplesort merge pre-reading

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Claudio Freire wrote: > I spoke too soon, git AM had failed and I didn't notice. I wrote the regression test that causes Postgres to crash with the patch applied. It tests, among other things, that CLUSTER tuples are fixed-up by a routine

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

Andres Freund writes: > 0002-Shore-up-some-weird-corner-cases-for-targetlist-SRFs.patch > Forbid UPDATE ... SET foo = SRF() and ORDER BY / GROUP BY containing > SRFs that would change the number of returned rows. Without the > latter e.g. SELECT 1 ORDER BY

Re: [HACKERS] Tuplesort merge pre-reading

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Here's a new version of these patches, rebased over current master. I > squashed the two patches into one, there's not much point to keep them > separate. I don't know what was up with the other ones, but this one

Re: [HACKERS][REVIEW] Tab Completion for CREATE DATABASE ... TEMPLATE ...

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> The query you committed is flat wrong, because it doesn't >> account for database ownership being granted via role membership. > > Ah, there was a

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

Andres Freund writes: > Attached is a significantly updated patch series (see the mail one up > for details about what this is, I don't want to quote it in its > entirety). I've finally cleared my plate enough to start reviewing this patchset. >

Re: [HACKERS] multivariate statistics (v19)

On 3 August 2016 at 02:58, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Attached is v19 of the "multivariate stats" patch series Hi, I started looking at this - just at a very high level - I've not read much of the detail yet, but here are some initial review comments. I think the

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes

On 09/01/2016 11:55 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: I have fixed all other issues you have raised. Updated patch is attached with this mail. The following script hangs on idx_val creation - just with v5, WAL patch not applied. Best regards, Jesper zero.sql Description: application/sql --

[HACKERS] Re: [PATCH] Tab completion for ALTER TYPE … RENAME VALUE …

ilm...@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker) writes: > Hi hackers, > > Here's a patch to add psql tab completion for the recently-added ALTER > TYPE … RENAME VALUE feature (thanks to Tom for fixing it up and > committing it). I've added it to the 2016-11 commit fest:

Re: [HACKERS][REVIEW] Tab Completion for CREATE DATABASE ... TEMPLATE ...

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Kevin Grittner writes: >> But that gives incorrect results for the case I asked about earlier >> on the thread, while the query I pushed gives correct results: > > AFAICS, my query gives correct results for

Re: [HACKERS][REVIEW] Tab Completion for CREATE DATABASE ... TEMPLATE ...

Kevin Grittner writes: > But that gives incorrect results for the case I asked about earlier > on the thread, while the query I pushed gives correct results: AFAICS, my query gives correct results for that case. bob is permitted to copy fred's databases db1 and postgres, or

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use LEFT JOINs in some system views in case referenced row doesn

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> Why would we need to backpatch this commit? > >> You are right there is no need to get that

Re: [HACKERS][REVIEW] Tab Completion for CREATE DATABASE ... TEMPLATE ...

On 9/12/16, Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I wasn't aware that this patch was doing anything nontrivial ... > > Well, it is not doing anything other than showing candidate > templates for tab completion beyond

Re: [HACKERS] Push down more full joins in postgres_fdw

On 2016/09/09 21:35, Etsuro Fujita wrote: On 2016/09/08 19:51, Etsuro Fujita wrote: On 2016/09/06 22:07, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: This patch tries to do two things at a time 1. support join pushdown for FULL join when the joining relations have remote conditions 2. better support for fetching

Re: [HACKERS][REVIEW] Tab Completion for CREATE DATABASE ... TEMPLATE ...

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wasn't aware that this patch was doing anything nontrivial ... Well, it is not doing anything other than showing candidate templates for tab completion beyond those flagged as template databases. > After looking at it I

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use LEFT JOINs in some system views in case referenced row doesn

Michael Paquier writes: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> Why would we need to backpatch this commit? > You are right there is no need to get that into 9.6. Sorry for the mistake. Oh, that's my fault, I'd incorrectly

Re: [HACKERS] Aggregate Push Down - Performing aggregation on foreign server

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Prabhat Sahu < prabhat.s...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Hi, > > While testing "Aggregate pushdown", i found the below error: > -- GROUP BY alias showing different behavior after adding patch. > > -- Create table "t1", insert few records. > create table t1(c1 int);

Re: [HACKERS] Aggregate Push Down - Performing aggregation on foreign server

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > > >> While checking for shippability, we build the target list which is passed >> to >> the foreign server as fdw_scan_tlist. The target list contains >> a. All the GROUP BY expressions >> b. Shippable

[HACKERS] [PATCH] Tab completion for ALTER TYPE … RENAME VALUE …

Hi hackers, Here's a patch to add psql tab completion for the recently-added ALTER TYPE … RENAME VALUE feature (thanks to Tom for fixing it up and committing it). It's modelled on the ALTER TYPE … RENAME ATTRIBUTE completion, but tweaked to return string literals instead of identifiers. -

Re: [HACKERS] Refactoring of heapam code.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Anastasia Lubennikova < a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > 06.09.2016 07:44, Pavan Deolasee: > > 2. I don't understand the difference between PageGetItemHeapHeaderOnly() > and PageGetItemHeap(). They seem to do exactly the same thing and can be > used

Re: [HACKERS] asynchronous and vectorized execution

Hello, At Thu, 01 Sep 2016 16:12:31 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote in <20160901.161231.110068639.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > There's perfomance degradation for non-asynchronous nodes, as > shown as 't0' below. > > The patch adds

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use LEFT JOINs in some system views in case referenced row doesn

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 12 September 2016 at 08:28, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> On 12 September 2016 at 03:27, Michael Paquier >>>

Re: [HACKERS] CVE-2016-1238 fix breaks (at least) pg_rewind tests

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-09-08 18:13:06 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> > I can't vouch for the windows stuff, and >> > the invocations indeed look vulnerable. I'm not sure if the fix actually >> > matters on windows, given . is the

Re: [HACKERS] Typo in filename identification

On 11 September 2016 at 23:56, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > The IDENTIFICATION filename in src/backend/storage/ipc/dsm_impl.c is > incorrectly labelling the file dsm.c. Patch fixing the typo attached. > > cheers ./daniel Applied, thanks. -- Simon Riggs

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use LEFT JOINs in some system views in case referenced row doesn

On 12 September 2016 at 08:28, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 12 September 2016 at 03:27, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >> >>> So I'd propose the attached for 9.6 and

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench - allow to store select results into variables

Hi Fabien, On 2016/09/07 23:01, Fabien COELHO wrote: >> Custom script looks like: >> >> \; >> select a \into a >>from tab where a = 1; >> \set i debug(:a) >> >> I get the following error: >> >> undefined variable "a" >> client 0 aborted in state 1; execution of meta-command failed > > Good

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use LEFT JOINs in some system views in case referenced row doesn

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 12 September 2016 at 03:27, Michael Paquier > wrote: > >> So I'd propose the attached for 9.6 and HEAD. > > The $OP commit was against HEAD only, not against 9.6 > > Why would we need to

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use LEFT JOINs in some system views in case referenced row doesn

On 12 September 2016 at 03:27, Michael Paquier wrote: > So I'd propose the attached for 9.6 and HEAD. The $OP commit was against HEAD only, not against 9.6 Why would we need to backpatch this commit? -- Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/

Re: [HACKERS]

2016-09-12 9:07 GMT+02:00 Craig Ringer : > On 12 September 2016 at 14:29, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > >> I would've expected once per query. There's no way the expressions can > >> reference the row data, so there's no reason to evaluate them each >

Re: [HACKERS]

On 12 September 2016 at 14:29, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> I would've expected once per query. There's no way the expressions can >> reference the row data, so there's no reason to evaluate them each >> time. > > I disagree - it is hypothetical situation but it is possible >

Re: [HACKERS] Aggregate Push Down - Performing aggregation on foreign server

Hi, While testing "Aggregate pushdown", i found the below error: -- GROUP BY alias showing different behavior after adding patch. -- Create table "t1", insert few records. create table t1(c1 int); insert into t1 values(10), (20); -- Create foreign table: create foreign table f_t1 (c1 int)

Re: [HACKERS] patch: function xmltable

On 12 September 2016 at 13:07, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> Out of interest, should the syntax allow room for future expansion to >> permit reading from file rather than just string literal / column >> reference? It'd be ideal to avoid reading big documents wholly into >>

[HACKERS]

2016-09-12 8:14 GMT+02:00 Craig Ringer : > On 12 September 2016 at 14:02, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > Hi > > > > There is some opened questions - the standard (and some other databases) > > requires entering XPath expression as string literal. > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use LEFT JOINs in some system views in case referenced row doesn

On 12 September 2016 at 03:38, Tom Lane wrote: > On reflection, maybe s/walsender/WAL sender/? It doesn't look like > we really use the word "walsender" in user-facing docs. There are already * 3 user messages referring to walsender and 2 referring to walreceiver * multiple

Re: [HACKERS] patch: function xmltable

On 12 September 2016 at 14:02, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Hi > > There is some opened questions - the standard (and some other databases) > requires entering XPath expression as string literal. > > I am thinking so it is too strong not necessary limit - (it enforces dynamic >

Re: [HACKERS] Project Policies

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:33:58PM +0200, Vik Fearing wrote: > I often see mention of project policies for various things (the one > triggering this email is in commit 967a7b0). > > Where can I find documentation for these policies? In PostgreSQL community jargon, referring to something as

Re: [HACKERS] patch: function xmltable

Hi There is some opened questions - the standard (and some other databases) requires entering XPath expression as string literal. I am thinking so it is too strong not necessary limit - (it enforces dynamic query in more cases), so I allowed the expressions there. Another questions is when

Re: [HACKERS] patch: function xmltable

On 12 September 2016 at 13:07, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> Out of interest, should the syntax allow room for future expansion to >> permit reading from file rather than just string literal / column >> reference? It'd be ideal to avoid reading big documents wholly into >>

  1   2   >