Re: [HACKERS] OpenSSL 1.1 breaks configure and more

On 09/15/2016 03:16 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote: Now for a review: It looks generally good but I think I saw one error. In fe-secure-openssl.c your code still calls SSL_library_init() in OpenSSL 1.1. I think it should be enough to just call OPENSSL_init_ssl(OPENSSL_INIT_LOAD_CONFIG, NULL) like

Re: [HACKERS] patch: function xmltable

2016-09-12 8:46 GMT+02:00 Craig Ringer : > 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 >

Re: [HACKERS] Surprising behaviour of \set AUTOCOMMIT ON

>Have you considered expanding >the API for hook functions? Changing the hooks API to allow rejecting a setting and return false is certainly useful to other psql variables wanting to report an error and reject a value. I did not consider expanding hook APIs because there was no requirement in

Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum WIP

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 7:44 PM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Amit Kapila >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:11

Re: [HACKERS] WAL consistency check facility

Hello, I've added the updated the patch with the necessary documentation and comments. I've referenced Robert's reply in this thread and Simon's reply in Production block comparison facility thread to write the documentation. This feature is used to check the consistency of WAL records, i.e,

Re: [HACKERS] less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem

On 02/09/16 15:19, Andres Freund wrote: On 2016-09-02 08:31:42 +0530, Robert Haas wrote: I wonder whether we ought to just switch from the consistent method to the semiconsistent method and call it good. +1. I think, before long, we're going to have to switch away from having locks &

Re: [HACKERS] Use pread and pwrite instead of lseek + write and read

17.08.2016, 22:11, Tom Lane kirjoitti: Robert Haas writes: I don't understand why you think this would create non-trivial portability issues. The patch as submitted breaks entirely on platforms without pread/pwrite. Yes, we can add a configure test and some shim

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

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:28 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Ashutosh

Re: [HACKERS] Printing bitmap objects in the debugger

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Ashutosh Bapat writes: >> > While working on partition-wise join, I had to examine Relids objects >> > many times. Printing the Bitmapset::words[] in binary

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes

One other point, I would like to discuss is that currently, we have a concept for tracking active hash scans (hashscan.c) which I think is mainly to protect splits when the backend which is trying to split has some scan open. You can read "Other Notes" section of access/hash/README for further

Re: [HACKERS] Printing bitmap objects in the debugger

>> Alvaro Herrera writes: >>> I don't understand. Why don't you just use "call pprint(the bitmapset)" >>> in the debugger? >> >> Bitmapsets aren't Nodes, so pprint doesn't work directly on them. >> I usually find that I can pprint some node containing the value(s) >>

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Jesper Pedersen wrote: > Hi, > > On 09/14/2016 07:24 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > >>> UPDATE also sees an improvement. >>> >> >> Can you explain this more? Is it more compare to HEAD or more as >> compare to Btree? Isn't this

Re: [HACKERS] Printing bitmap objects in the debugger

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Pavan Deolasee > wrote: >> The complete API reference is available here >> http://lldb.llvm.org/python_reference/index.html >> >> Looks like an

<    1   2