Re: [HACKERS] Sample configuration files

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: > I wonder if it would be a good idea to have a postgresql.conf.d > directory that postgresql.conf would include_dir by default. These > could then live in there and all I would have had to do is uncomment the > values I

Re: [HACKERS] Small race in pg_xlogdump --follow

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: > > Oh, right, at the very last loop. I've never seen it need more than 1 > loop > > so I didn't manage to hit that codepath :) But yeah, saving errno and > > restoring it on the

Re: [HACKERS] multivariate statistics (v19)

This patch set is in pretty good shape, the only problem is that it's so big that no-one seems to have the time or courage to do the final touches and commit it. If we just focus on the functional dependencies part for now, I think we might get somewhere. I peeked at the MCV and histogram

Re: [HACKERS] Fix checkpoint skip logic on idle systems by tracking LSN progress

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: >> At Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:00:15 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI >>

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade from 9.5 to 9.6 fails with "invalid argument"

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Thomas Kellerer wrote: > Tom Lane schrieb am 29.09.2016 um 23:10: >> Thomas Kellerer writes: >>> for some reason pg_upgrade failed on Windows 10 for me, with an error >>> message that one specifc _vm file couldn't be

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes

On 30-Sep-2016 6:24 AM, "Robert Haas" wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On September 29, 2016 5:28:00 PM PDT, Robert Haas wrote: > >>On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Andres Freund

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 23:45:52 +0530 Mithun Cy wrote: > This patch do not apply on latest code. it fails as follows It's strange. I have no problems applying it to commit fd321a1dfd64d30 Ok, some trailing whitespace and mixing of tabs and spaces which git apply

Re: [HACKERS] Learning to hack Postgres - Keeping track of ctids

Thanks Craig, I will look at that code. The alternative I'm considering is whether I can define my own index type on the column storing my array of primary key ids. The index would, for each primary key id just provide a reference to the ctids of the related records. In theory, I think this

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Refactoring: rename md5Salt to pwsalt

Aleksander Alekseev writes: > Suggested patch (first of many, I hope) renames `md5Salt` to more > general `pwsalt`. > Does it sound reasonable? I'm dubious. The main problem with supposing that port->md5Salt can serve other purposes is its fixed size. I think you're

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Refactoring: rename md5Salt to pwsalt

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Aleksander Alekseev writes: >> Suggested patch (first of many, I hope) renames `md5Salt` to more >> general `pwsalt`. >> Does it sound reasonable? > > I'm dubious. The main problem with supposing

Re: [HACKERS] wal_segment size vs max_wal_size

On 9/26/16 8:38 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Kuntal Ghosh > wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> >>> IIRC, there is already a patch to update the minRecoveryPoint >>> correctly, can

Re: [HACKERS] Tuplesort merge pre-reading

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Bah, I fumbled the initSlabAllocator() function, attached is a fixed > version. This looks much better. It's definitely getting close. Thanks for being considerate of my more marginal concerns. More feedback: * Should

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > Considering, I have missed the real intention of their suggestions, I think > such a serious objection on any work should be discussed on list. To answer > the actual objection, I have already mentioned upthread that

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

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > This patch will need some changes to conversion_error_callback(). That > function reports an error in case there was an error converting the > result obtained from the foreign server into an internal datum

Re: [HACKERS] Learning to hack Postgres - Keeping track of ctids

On 30 Sep. 2016 19:36, "Emrul" wrote: > > Thanks Craig, I will look at that code. > > The alternative I'm considering is whether I can define my own index type on > the column storing my array of primary key ids. The index would, for each > primary key id just provide a

[HACKERS] [PATCH] Refactoring: rename md5Salt to pwsalt

Hello. Since there are plans/efforts to introduce additional authorization methods in nearest feature I suggest to refactor the code so it wouldn't mention md5 when it possible. `md5Salt` for instance could be not only "md5 salt" but also "sha2 salt", etc - depending on what authorization method

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump / copy bugs with "big lines" ?

Tomas Vondra wrote: > A few minor comments regarding the patch: > > 1) CopyStartSend seems pretty pointless - It only has one function call > in it, and is called on exactly one place (and all other places simply > call allowLongStringInfo directly). I'd get rid of this function and >

Re: [HACKERS] Issue with bgworker, SPI and pgstat_report_stat

On 28/09/2016 18:46, Robert Haas wrote: > > Everybody seems happy with this fix for a first step, so I've > committed it and back-patched it to 9.3. > Thanks! -- Julien Rouhaud http://dalibo.com - http://dalibo.org -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To

Re: [HACKERS] On conflict update & hint bits

On 30.09.2016 19:37, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: Later we try to check tuple visibility: ExecCheckHeapTupleVisible(estate, , buffer); and inside HeapTupleSatisfiesMVCC try to set hint bit. So, you're

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: Make it possible to disallow WHERE-less UPDATE and DELETE

Thomas Munro wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 6:19 PM, David Fetter wrote: > > Please find attached the next revision. > > I'm not sold on ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR. There's nothing wrong with the > syntax, since parsing succeeded. It would be cool if we could use >

[HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade from 9.5 to 9.6 fails with "invalid argument"

Masahiko Sawada schrieb am 30.09.2016 um 12:54: I did this on two different computers, one with Windows 10 the other with Windows 7. (only test-databases, so no real issue anyway) In both cases running a "vacuum full" for the table in question fixed the problem and pg_upgrade finished without

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I would just be very disappointed if, after the amount of work that > Amit and others have put into this project, the code gets rejected > because somebody thinks a different project would have been more worth > doing.

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes

On 2016-09-30 17:39:04 +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > I would just be very disappointed if, after the amount of work that > > Amit and others have put into this project, the code gets rejected > > because somebody

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 7:47 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > My only firm position is that it wouldn't be very hard to investigate > hash-over-btree to Andres' satisfaction, say, so, why not? I'm > surprised that this has caused consternation -- ISTM that Andres' > suggestion is

Re: [HACKERS] On conflict update & hint bits

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > Later we try to check tuple visibility: > > ExecCheckHeapTupleVisible(estate, , buffer); > > and inside HeapTupleSatisfiesMVCC try to set hint bit. So, you're using repeatable read or serializable

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade from 9.5 to 9.6 fails with "invalid argument"

On 09/30/2016 12:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: On 09/30/2016 10:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Oh! How would I enable or use that? 1. Pull the latest version of the module from git. 2. enable it in your buildfarm config file 3. do "run_branches.pl --run-all

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade from 9.5 to 9.6 fails with "invalid argument"

Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 09/30/2016 10:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Oh! How would I enable or use that? > 1. Pull the latest version of the module from git. > 2. enable it in your buildfarm config file > 3. do "run_branches.pl --run-all --verbose --test" and watch the

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade from 9.5 to 9.6 fails with "invalid argument"

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: >> Hello, >> >> At Fri, 30 Sep 2016 13:11:21 +0900, Masahiko Sawada >> wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] COPY command with RLS bug

Adam, Michael, * Adam Brightwell (adam.brightw...@crunchydata.com) wrote: > > Looking for and improving test coverage for RLS is a good suggestion, > > but let's not link the fate of the issue reported here with this > > requirement. I have spent some time looking at this patch and this > > looks

Re: [HACKERS] Question / requests.

On 9/30/16, Francisco Olarte wrote: > Hello everyone. Hello, Francisco! > Also, although I feel confident in my coding I have zero knowledge of > developing for postgres, It is easy enough and all important steps are documented in the wiki. Also some interesting things

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: Make it possible to disallow WHERE-less UPDATE and DELETE

On 30/09/2016 05:23, Thomas Munro wrote: > > It would be really nice to be able to set this to 'Ready for > Committer' in this CF. Do you want to post a v6 patch or are you > happy for me to ask a committer to look at v5 + these three > corrections? I just looked at the patch, and noticed that

[HACKERS] On conflict update & hint bits

Hi, I am faced with rarely reproduced problem at our multimaster (and never at vanilla Postgres). We are using our own customized transaction manager, so it may be definitely the problem in our multimaster. But stack trace looks suspiciously and this is why I want to consult with people

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I would just be very disappointed if, after the amount of work that > Amit and others have put into this project, the code gets rejected > because somebody thinks a different project would have been more worth > doing.

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade from 9.5 to 9.6 fails with "invalid argument"

Masahiko Sawada writes: > +#ifndef WIN32 > if ((src_fd = open(fromfile, O_RDONLY, 0)) < 0) > +#else > + if ((src_fd = open(fromfile, O_RDONLY | O_BINARY)) < 0) > +#endif This is easier with PG_BINARY. Also, both open() calls need this. I'm rather inclined to

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes

Peter Geoghegan writes: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> The fact that we have hash indexes already and cannot remove them >> because too much other code depends on hash opclasses is also, in my >> opinion, a sufficiently good

Re: [HACKERS] Rename max_parallel_degree?

On 23/09/2016 21:10, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> On 9/20/16 4:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> No, I'm assuming that the classes would be built-in. A string tag >>> seems like over-engineering to me,

Re: [HACKERS] sequences and pg_upgrade

23.09.2016 21:06, Peter Eisentraut: Here is an updated patch set. Compared to the initial set, I have changed pg_dump's sorting priorities so that sequence data is always after table data. This would otherwise have introduced a problem because sortDataAndIndexObjectsBySize() only considers

Re: [HACKERS] COPY as a set returning function

Corey Huinker writes: > Attached is a _very_ rough patch implementing a proof-of-concept function > copy_srf(); > ... > As for that future direction, we could either have: > - a robust function named something like copy_srf(), with parameters for > all of the relevant

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres

On 9/6/16 2:58 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > 0001-0003 look clear to me as well. 0006 - 0009 also seem OK. The rest > really only make sense if we decided to make the switch to C++. I have committed 0001, 0002, 0003, 0006, as well as 0012. Thomas Munro had some interesting comments on

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: Make it possible to disallow WHERE-less UPDATE and DELETE

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 06:37:17PM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > On 30/09/2016 05:23, Thomas Munro wrote: > > > > It would be really nice to be able to set this to 'Ready for > > Committer' in this CF. Do you want to post a v6 patch or are you > > happy for me to ask a committer to look at v5 +

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: Make it possible to disallow WHERE-less UPDATE and DELETE

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > On 30/09/2016 21:12, David Fetter wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 06:37:17PM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote: >>> On 30/09/2016 05:23, Thomas Munro wrote: It would be really nice to be able to set this to

[HACKERS] COPY as a set returning function

Attached is a _very_ rough patch implementing a proof-of-concept function copy_srf(); It allows you to do things like this: # select a,c,e from copy_srf('echo 12,345,67,89,2016-01-01',true) as t(a integer, b text, c text, d text, e date); a | c | e ++ 12 | 67 |

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Fabien, Jeevan, * Jeevan Ladhe (jeevan.la...@enterprisedb.com) wrote: > On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > >> Here is a simple patch which adds a bunch of operators (bitwise: & | ^ ~, > >> comparisons: =/== <>/!= < <= > >=, logical: and/&& or/|| xor/^^

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres

On 9/28/16 10:48 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > I wonder if the following bit of gin.h should be more nuanced: maybe > it's OK to convert between bool and GinTernaryValue, but it's > definitely not OK to cast between pointers types? Or maybe we should > have a function/macro to convert between the

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: Make it possible to disallow WHERE-less UPDATE and DELETE

On 30/09/2016 21:12, David Fetter wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 06:37:17PM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote: >> On 30/09/2016 05:23, Thomas Munro wrote: >>> >>> It would be really nice to be able to set this to 'Ready for >>> Committer' in this CF. Do you want to post a v6 patch or are you >>>

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: Make it possible to disallow WHERE-less UPDATE and DELETE

On 9/29/16 11:23 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > The regression test fails. The expected error messages show the old > wording, so I think you forgot to add a file. Also, should > contrib/require_where/Makefile define REGRESS = require_where? That > would allow 'make check' from inside that

Re: [HACKERS] ICU integration

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 9/23/16 2:27 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: >> The warning persists even after I reindex all affected tables (and >> start a new backend), because you're only recording the collation at >> pg_collation level

Re: [HACKERS] sloppy handling of pointers

On 9/27/16 9:45 PM, Mark Dilger wrote: Fix attached. General comment on all these fixes you're submitting: you'll want to submit those to the commitfest app to make sure they get looked at. -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Experts in Analytics, Data

[HACKERS] Show hash / bitmap sizes in EXPLAIN ANALYZE?

Hi, At the moment in-memory sort and hash nodes show their memory usage in explain: │ -> Sort (cost=59.83..62.33 rows=1000 width=4) (actual time=0.512..0.632 rows=1000 loops=1)│ │ Sort Key: a.a

Re: [HACKERS] Macro customizable hashtable / bitmapscan & aggregation perf

Hi, On 2016-07-26 17:43:33 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > In the attached patch I've attached simplehash.h, which can be > customized by a bunch of macros, before being inlined. There's also a > patch using this for tidbitmap.c and nodeAgg/nodeSubplan/... via > execGrouping.c. Attached is a

Re: [HACKERS] Set log_line_prefix and application name in test drivers

On 9/29/16 10:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Personally I'm also on board with using this for regression testing: > > log_line_prefix = '%t [%p] %q%a ' Committed that way, but with %m instead of %t, as discussed earlier. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL

[HACKERS] contrib/pg_visibility craps out in assert-enabled builds

So I tried using pg_visibility's pg_check_visible() as part of testing the business with pg_upgrade generating faulty visibility maps on bigendian servers, and it instantly generated an assert failure here: #2 0x0041de78 in ExceptionalCondition (conditionName=, errorType=, fileName=,

Re: [HACKERS] PL/Python adding support for multi-dimensional arrays

On 9/29/16 1:51 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Jim, I was confused, but you agreed with me. Were you also confused, or am I missing something? I was confused by inputs: CREATE FUNCTION repr(i foo[]) RETURNS text LANGUAGE plpythonu AS $$return repr(i)$$; select repr(array[row(1,2)::foo,

Re: [HACKERS] COPY as a set returning function

On 1 Oct. 2016 05:20, "Tom Lane" wrote: > > Corey Huinker writes: > > Attached is a _very_ rough patch implementing a proof-of-concept function > > copy_srf(); > > ... > > As for that future direction, we could either have: > > - a robust function

Re: [HACKERS] Showing parallel status in \df+

On 9/28/16 2:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I am sorry, I disagree. Proposed form is hard readable. Is not possible to > simply copy/paste. Why do you care? You can use \sf if you want to copy the function code. > I cannot to imagine any use case for proposed format. My vote (which was not

Re: [HACKERS] Showing parallel status in \df+

Jim Nasby writes: > On 9/28/16 2:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> My vote (which was not counted by Stephen) was to remove it from \df+ >> altogether. I stand by that. People who are used to seeing the output >> in \df+ will wonder "where the heck did it go" and

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes

On 30-Sep-2016 10:26 PM, "Peter Geoghegan" wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > I would just be very disappointed if, after the amount of work that > > Amit and others have put into this project, the code gets rejected > >

Re: [HACKERS] COPY as a set returning function

Craig Ringer writes: > On 1 Oct. 2016 05:20, "Tom Lane" wrote: >> I think the last of those suggestions has come up before. It has the >> large advantage that you don't have to remember a different syntax for >> copy-as-a-function. > That

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade from 9.5 to 9.6 fails with "invalid argument"

Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 09/29/2016 05:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> We might've caught these things earlier if the buildfarm testing >> included cross-version upgrades, but of course that requires a >> lot of test infrastructure that's not there ... > I have done quite a bit

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade from 9.5 to 9.6 fails with "invalid argument"

On 09/29/2016 05:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: We might've caught these things earlier if the buildfarm testing included cross-version upgrades, but of course that requires a lot of test infrastructure that's not there ... I have done quite a bit of work on this - see

Re: [HACKERS] wal_segment size vs max_wal_size

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:05 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 9/26/16 8:38 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Kuntal Ghosh >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Amit Kapila

Re: [HACKERS] ICU integration

On 9/23/16 2:27 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > This patch adds pkg-config support to our configure script, in order > to produce the build options for ICU. That's cool, and I'm a fan of > pkg-config, but it's an extra dependency that I just wanted to > highlight. For example MacOSX appears to ship

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup stream xlog to tar

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Michael Paquier < > michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Magnus Hagander >> wrote: >> > Ugh. That would be nice to have, but I

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade from 9.5 to 9.6 fails with "invalid argument"

On 09/30/2016 10:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: On 09/29/2016 05:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: We might've caught these things earlier if the buildfarm testing included cross-version upgrades, but of course that requires a lot of test infrastructure that's not

[HACKERS] Question / requests.

Hello everyone. I've been using the bugs/general mailing lists for a while, but never been on hackers, so please take that into account. After some messages due to vacuumdb auto-deadlocking itself on the system tables when doing paralell vacuum of a full database I suggested adding some flags to