On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello Haribabu,
>
> Alas, performance testing is quite sensitive to many details:-(
>>>
>>
> The current status of the patch and recent mail thread discussion doesn't
>> represent the same.
>>
>
> The same what?
>
> The discussion was about
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Amit Kapila
>>> wrote:
[ new patch ]
>>>
>>> Committed with some further cosmetic changes.
>>
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
>
> Dne 11/27/2016 v 11:02 PM Andres Freund napsal(a):
>
>> On 2016-11-27 22:21:49 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/11/16 21:47, Andres Freund wrote:
>>>
Hi,
+typedef struct SlabBlockData *SlabBlock; /* forw
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> This is a gentle reminder.
>
> you assigned as reviewer to the current patch in the 11-2016 commitfest.
> But you haven't shared your review yet. Can you please try to share your
> views
> about the patch. This will help us
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Pavel Stehule
wrote:
>
>
> 2016-11-22 13:02 GMT+01:00 Oleksandr Shulgin >:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Pavel Stehule
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 2016-11-22 3:46 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas :
>>>
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 4:55 AM, Oleksandr Shulgin
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 5:53 AM, Pavel Stehule
wrote:
> Hi
>
> 2016-11-17 12:00 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule :
>
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> a independent implementation of parametrized queries can looks like
>> attached patch:
>>
>> this code is simple without any unexpected behave.
>>
>> parameters are used when
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fabien COELHO writes:
> >> In psql, if backslash followed by [CR]LF is interpreted as a
> >> continuation symbol, commands like these seem problematic
> >> on Windows since backslash is the directory separator:
> >>
> >> \cd \
> >> \cd c:\somepat
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
> > On 2016/09/26 20:27, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello Amit,
> >>
> I am marking the pgbench-into-5.patch [1] as "Ready for Committer" as
> I
> have no further comme
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello Julian,
>
> I've adressed those spacing errors.
>>
>
> Ok.
>
> You are right, if pgpassfile_used is true, it SHOULD be defined, I just
>> like to be careful whenever I'm working with strings. But I guess in this
>> scenario I can tru
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Pavel Stehule
wrote:
> Dne 30. 11. 2016 14:53 napsal uživatel "Pavel Stehule" <
> pavel.steh...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >
> >
> > 2016-11-30 13:38 GMT+01:00 Alvaro Herrera :
> >>
> >> Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> > 2016-11-30 2:40 GMT+01:00 Craig Ringer :
> >> >
> >> > > On
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> I think this patch looks good now so I am setting it to ready for
> committer.
>
> I like the idea of the patch and I think that while this change will break
> some tools which look at the sequence relations I think the advantages are
> wo
Hello Haribabu,
Alas, performance testing is quite sensitive to many details:-(
The current status of the patch and recent mail thread discussion doesn't
represent the same.
The same what?
The discussion was about a particular test in a particular setting for a
particular load, the fact
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> I have tried to restrict all the non-readonly operation modes or modes
>> where parallelism might not make sense like DestTupleStore. If we
>> want to just prohibit the cases where it ca
On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello Amit.
>
> Also, given the heavy UPDATE nature of the pgbench test, a non 100% default
>>> fill factor on some tables would make sense.
>>>
>>
>> FWIW, sometime back I have seen that with fill factor 80, at somewhat
>> moderate client
On 15 September 2016 at 18:51, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 6:04 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 1 September 2016 at 21:28, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> So the only way to handle multiple locks is to do this roughly the way
>>> Rod suggests.
>>
>> I've just been reading the VACUUM code and
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> On 11/30/2016 09:01 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> +bool
>>> +pg_backend_random(char *dst, int len)
>>> +{
>>> + int i;
>>> + char *end = dst + len;
>>> +
>>>
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> At Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:14:23 +0900, Michael Paquier <
> michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote in xn_g7uwnpqun_a_sewb...@mail.gmail.com>
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> > wrote:
> > >
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 5:39 AM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
> >>> I dropped the ball on this one back in July, so
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Vladimir Rusinov
wrote:
> This patch does not have a reviewer, so I've decided to try myself on.
>
> Disclaimer: although I review quite a lot of code daily, this is my first
> review for PostgreSQL. I don't know code very well, and frankly I don't
> really know C
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Jeff Janes
> wrote:
> >> > In commit 37484ad2aacef5ec7, you changed the way that frozen tuples
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
>>> wrote:
The term "WAL activity' is used in the comment for
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 6:04 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On 1 September 2016 at 21:28, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> So the only way to handle multiple locks is to do this roughly the way
> >> Rod suggests.
> >
> > I've just been reading the VACUUM
On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 8:38 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 10/4/16 10:47 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
> > 03.10.2016 15:29, Anastasia Lubennikova:
> >> 03.10.2016 05:22, Michael Paquier:
> >>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova
> >>>
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Serge Rielau wrote:
> Time for me to dig into that then.
>
Closed in 2016-11 commitfest with "returned with feedback" status.
Please feel free to update the status once you submit the updated patch.
Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia
I have now pushed this to 9.5, 9.6 and master. It could be backpatched
to 9.4 with ease (just a small change in heap_form_tuple); anything
further back would require much more effort.
I used a 32-bit limit using sizeof(int32). I tested and all the
mentioned cases seem to work sanely; if you can
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> I have attached a new version. The commitfest should technically have been
> closed by now, so do what you like with the status. I can always submit the
> patch to the next commitfest.
I have just moved it to the next CF. Will look at it
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:17:34PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> It might be that (as suggested downthread) we should consider
>> supporting multiple IPs in the hostaddr string as well, but that
>> requires some thought. For example, what ha
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>Yeah, we should change that. Are you going to write a patch?
Thanks, will work on this will produce a patch to patch to fix.
--
Thanks and Regards
Mithun C Y
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Kouhei Kaigai
wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Jeevan Chalke
> > wrote:
> > > 1. ps_numTuples is declared as long, however offset and count members
> in
> > > LimitState struct and bound member in SortState struct is int64.
> However
> > > long on 32 b
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:09 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Dean,
>
> * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > On 1 December 2016 at 14:38, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > >> In get_policies_for_relation() ...
> > >> ... I think it should so
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Michael Paquier
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Jeff Janes
> wrote:
> >>> postgres_fdw has some checks to enforce that non-sup
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
> > On 10/12/16 7:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> I don't think it's wrong that the handling is done there, though. The
> >> process that is registering the background worker is well-
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Pavan Deolasee > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Haribabu Kommi
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the patch. This shows a very good performance improvement.
>>>
>>>
>> Thank you. Can y
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Okano, Naoki
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 10:34 AM Craig Ringer wrote:
> >On 30 November 2016 at 09:18, Okano, Naoki
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On November 29, 2016 at 5:03 PM Craig Ringer wrote:
> >>> Would it be better rephrased as "--endpos can only
Thanks every for your help. I am not familiar with the internal of the vacuum
freeze, just curious if there is no row change on the table(in other words, all
pages are frozen), why could index page have dead tuple?
is it possible to scan data page first, if all data page are frozen, skipping
th
I think this patch looks good now so I am setting it to ready for committer.
I like the idea of the patch and I think that while this change will
break some tools which look at the sequence relations I think the
advantages are worth it (for example making more sequence DDL respecting
MVCC).
On 11/23/16 5:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I looked at this briefly. I agree that 0001-0003 are simple cleanup of
> the grammar and could be pushed without further ado.
Done.
> However, starting
> with 0004 I begin to get queasy. The plan seems to be that instead of
> "objname" always being a List
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:17:34PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> It might be that (as suggested downthread) we should consider
> supporting multiple IPs in the hostaddr string as well, but that
> requires some thought. For example, what happens if, for example, the
> host and hostaddr lists are of u
On 11/30/2016 06:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Michael Paquier
Looking at the latest patch at code-level, there is some refactoring
to introduce initialize_context(). But it is actually not necessary
(perhaps this is the remnant of a past version?) as be_tls_init
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 21 October 2016 at 19:38, Vladimir Gordiychuk wrote:
> > Craig, Andres what do you thinks about previous message?
>
> I haven't had a chance to look further to be honest.
>
> Since a downstream disconnect works, though it's ugly, it's not
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
> I won't have time to fix this before the end of the Commitfest
The patch is marked as "returned with feedback" in 2016-11 commitfest.
Please free to submit an updated patch to the next commitfest.
Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote:
>> I've found myself wondering "where is my xlog" after running
>> pg_switch_xlog() in 10.0.
>>
>> Renaming pg_xlog to pg_wal created inconsistency between tools, function
>> names and di
Robert Haas writes:
> Given the precedent in pgbench (cf.
> 878fdcb843e087cc1cdeadc987d6ef55202ddd04), I think it requires an
> amazing level of optimism to suppose we won't eventually end up with a
> full-blown expression language here. I would suggest designing one
> from the beginning and gett
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Simon Riggs
> wrote:
> >> * pg_basebackup -R
> >> will write recovery.trigger to data directory
> >> insert parameters postgresql.conf.auto, if poss
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> * pg_basebackup -R
>>> will write recovery.trigger to data directory
>>> insert parameters postgresql.conf.auto, if possible
>>
>
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 11/30/16 8:06 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> On 30/11/16 22:37, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> I have taken the libpqwalreceiver refactoring patch and split it into
>>> two: one for the latch change, one for the API change. I have done some
>>
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 4:43 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I prefer the commands instead symbols - the parsing and processing symbols
> should be more complex than it is now. A psql parser is very simple - and
> any complex syntax enforces lot of code.
>
> \if_not
Given the precedent in pgbench (cf.
On 12/1/16 4:53 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> The reason why the SSL test suite is not in check-world is that SSL
> cannot be used with unix domain sockets, making it unfit in shared
> environments.
If that is it, that could be changed.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 2 December 2016 at 00:28, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 6:50 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> Obtaining a tuple lock requires two separate actions: First we do
>>> LockTuple() and then we do XactLockTableWait().
>>
>> I think that
On 11/30/16 8:06 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 30/11/16 22:37, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I have taken the libpqwalreceiver refactoring patch and split it into
>> two: one for the latch change, one for the API change. I have done some
>> mild editing.
>>
>> These two patches are now ready to commit
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> Would it be better to return NULL instead then.
>
> That would likely just result in application core dumps.
> See notes for commit 490cb21f7.
That's 40cb21f7 actually. Thanks for the pointer.
> I think we've establis
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> * pg_basebackup -R
>> will write recovery.trigger to data directory
>> insert parameters postgresql.conf.auto, if possible
>
> Don't understand that last line; otherwise, +1.
pg_basebackup
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Correct, but I'm defining that as user error. If hostaddr is
>> specified, host is not used to decide what to connect to, so it makes
>> no sense for it to be a string of multiple host names. If we allowed
>> multip
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
As you can see, after the patch libpq will now look at hostaddr r
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> * Move recovery.conf parameters into postgresql.conf
> Allow reload of most parameters, allow ALTER SYSTEM
> Provide visibility of values through GUC interface
+1.
> * recovery.conf is replaced by recovery.trigger -> recovery.done
+1.
> *
On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:54:46 +0100
Gilles Darold wrote:
> I've attached the v15 of the patch
> I've not applied patch patch_pg_current_logfile-v14.diff.backoff to
> prevent constant call of logfile_writename() on a busy system (errno =
> ENFILE | EMFILE).
I don't think it should be applied and
On 2 December 2016 at 00:28, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 6:50 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Obtaining a tuple lock requires two separate actions: First we do
>> LockTuple() and then we do XactLockTableWait().
>
> I think that's kind of a confusing way of looking at it. LockTuple()
>
On 29 November 2016 at 15:13, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 14 November 2016 at 15:50, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> I'm very tempted to rename this during the move to GUCs
>> ...
>>> Slightly less so, but still tempted to also rename these. They're n
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 6:50 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Obtaining a tuple lock requires two separate actions: First we do
> LockTuple() and then we do XactLockTableWait().
I think that's kind of a confusing way of looking at it. LockTuple()
waits for a "tuple" lmgr lock, and XactLockTableWait wait
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > This:
>
> >> Discussion:
> >> https://postgr.es/m/20161128182113.6527.58...@wrigleys.postgresql.org
> >> Discussion:
> >> https://postgr.es/m/CA+renyUEE29=X01JXdz8_TQvo6n9=2xoebbrnq8rklyr+kj...@mail.gmail.com
>
> > still looks
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
Unless we want to wait until that work is committed before doing more
r
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>>> As you can see, after the patch libpq will now look at hostaddr rather than
>>> host when validating the server certificate
Jim Nasby writes:
> On 12/1/16 1:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think that the patch I wrote is good cleanup, so I'm still inclined
>> to apply it in HEAD, but I no longer think it's fixing any case that's
>> significant in the field. I wonder if you have a counterexample?
> No; I'm sure I've run i
Andres Freund writes:
> This:
>> Discussion:
>> https://postgr.es/m/20161128182113.6527.58...@wrigleys.postgresql.org
>> Discussion:
>> https://postgr.es/m/CA+renyUEE29=X01JXdz8_TQvo6n9=2xoebbrnq8rklyr+kj...@mail.gmail.com
> still looks better than:
>> Discussion:
>> http://www.postgresql.or
On 2016-12-01 18:12:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> When and if somebody tries to game that, we can do something about it,
> >> but I'm not very worried. It's not like it's not trivial to get your
> >> company's name, or $b
On 12/1/16 1:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I think that the patch I wrote is good cleanup, so I'm still inclined
to apply it in HEAD, but I no longer think it's fixing any case that's
significant in the field. I wonder if you have a counterexample?
No; I'm sure I've run into this because of a temp ob
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> When and if somebody tries to game that, we can do something about it,
>> but I'm not very worried. It's not like it's not trivial to get your
>> company's name, or $badword of your choice, into the archives already.
> Sur
On 2016-12-01 18:05:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> ... the shortener isn't really doing anything for us. You end up with a
> line longer than 80 characters with message-IDs generated by either gmail
> or the bug report form, for instance these examples from recent commits:
Still seems quite useful t
Stephen Frost writes:
> Further, we seem agreed that URLs are what we want to have in the
> commits rather than just the message-ID.
If we're set on doing that, then ...
> The question on the table at the moment seems to be if we want to use
> https://postgr.es/m/ or https://postgresql.org/messa
All,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> I think this is a straw man. We've already decided to use message-IDs
> as the basic identity of messages for this purpose; other proposals
> were considered before and rejected as too inconvenient.
I tend to agree with Tom on this, for better or wor
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>>> I can't say I feel especially strongly either way on this but just to
>>> toss out a small thing that might make a small difference
>>>
>>> If you happen to know ho
I wrote:
> Yeah, I didn't have any doubt that it was real. Still don't know
> why my test case isn't doing what I expected, though.
Doh: the planner knows that transaction_timestamp() is stable, so
it concludes that the DISTINCT condition is vacuous. There is a
"Unique" node in the plan, but it
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
check-world isn't a magic bullet.
>>
>>> No, but deliberately leaving things out that could be run isn't
>>> helpi
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Mithun Cy wrote:
>> Reason is we first decode the URI(percent encoded character) then try to
>> split the string into multiple host assuming they are separated by ','. I
>> think we need to change the order here
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>> As you can see, after the patch libpq will now look at hostaddr rather than
>> host when validating the server certificate because that is what is stored
>> in the first (and only) ent
On 2016-11-30 16:11:23 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >> Actually we want to call slot_getattr instead heap_getattr, because of
> >> problem mentioned by Andres upthread and we also saw in
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>> I can't say I feel especially strongly either way on this but just to
>> toss out a small thing that might make a small difference
>>
>> If you happen to know how your message-ids are generated then you
>> might be a
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> but it doesn't:
>>
>> regression=# select distinct transaction_timestamp() from tenk1;
>> transaction_timestamp
>> ---
>> 2016-12-01 15:44:12.839417-05
>> (1 row)
>>
>> How is that happening?
>
I wrote:
>> Jim Nasby writes:
>>> I can't think of any reason you'd want the current behavior.
>> But I think fixing it to not recurse to extensions during temp namespace
>> cleanup might not be very hard. I'll take a look.
I wrote a test case to try to demonstrate that this patch was fixing a
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Mithun Cy wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Andreas Karlsson
> wrote:
>> Another thought about this code: should we not check if it is a unix
>> socket first before splitting the host? While I doubt that it is common to
>> have a unix >socket in a directo
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On 30 November 2016 at 16:19, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cab7npqthydyf-fo+fzvxrhz-7_hptm4rodbcsy9-noqhvet...@mail.gmail.com
>>
>> I'll be interested to know if it breaks anyone's MUA. If it doesn't all we
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> ... well, they would be if we passed down xactStartTimestamp to parallel
>>> workers, but I can't find any code that does that. In view of the fact that
>>> transaction_t
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> 1. As we decided to separate scankey and qual during planning time. So
> I am doing it at create_seqscan_path. My question is currently we
> don't have path node for seqscan, so where should we store scankey ?
> In Path node, or create new SeqS
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... well, they would be if we passed down xactStartTimestamp to parallel
>> workers, but I can't find any code that does that. In view of the fact that
>> transaction_timestamp() is marked as parallel-safe, this is a bug in
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> check-world isn't a magic bullet.
>
>> No, but deliberately leaving things out that could be run isn't
>> helping anything either.
>
> Tests that open security holes while
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> check-world isn't a magic bullet.
> No, but deliberately leaving things out that could be run isn't
> helping anything either.
Tests that open security holes while running aren't in my list of "things
that could be run aut
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> <5bih4k+4jfl6m39j...@guerrillamail.com> writes:
>>> pg_proc shows that now() is marked as restricted, but
>>> transaction_timestamp() is marked as safe.
>
>> That's certainly silly, because they're equivalent. I should think
>> they'r
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Well, if people are unwilling to add test suites to 'make
>> check-world', we can add 'make check-universe' and I'll run that
>> instead. And that can come with a big shiny disclaimer. I just want
>> a way to compile and r
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:04 PM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> you assigned as reviewer to the current patch in the 11-2016 commitfest.
> But you haven't shared your review yet in this commitfest on the latest
> patch posted by the author. If you don't have any comments on the patch,
> please move the
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> As you can see, after the patch libpq will now look at hostaddr rather than
> host when validating the server certificate because that is what is stored
> in the first (and only) entry of conn->connhost, and therefore what PQhost()
> retur
Robert Haas writes:
> Well, if people are unwilling to add test suites to 'make
> check-world', we can add 'make check-universe' and I'll run that
> instead. And that can come with a big shiny disclaimer. I just want
> a way to compile and run EVERYTHING that people care about not
> breaking, wh
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2016-12-01 14:43:04 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I get that, but this is the second time in very recent history that
>> I've broken something because there was code that wasn't compiled or
>> tests that weren't run by 'make check-world'.
> Well, I don't quite know what
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Well, I don't quite know what the alternative is. For some reason, which
> I don't quite understand personally, people care about security during
> regression tests runs. So we can't run the test automatedly. And nobody
> has added a buildfar
On 2016-12-01 14:43:04 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2016-12-01 14:22:19 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Andreas Karlsson
> >> wrote:
> >> > The SSL test suite (src/test/ssl) is broken in the master since c
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-12-01 14:22:19 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>> > The SSL test suite (src/test/ssl) is broken in the master since commit
>> > 9a1d0af4ad2cbd419115b453d811c141b80d872b, which is R
On 2016-12-01 14:22:19 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> > The SSL test suite (src/test/ssl) is broken in the master since commit
> > 9a1d0af4ad2cbd419115b453d811c141b80d872b, which is Robert's refactoring of
> > getting the server hostname for
I wrote:
> <5bih4k+4jfl6m39j...@guerrillamail.com> writes:
>> pg_proc shows that now() is marked as restricted, but
>> transaction_timestamp() is marked as safe.
> That's certainly silly, because they're equivalent. I should think
> they're both safe. Robert?
... well, they would be if we pass
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> The SSL test suite (src/test/ssl) is broken in the master since commit
> 9a1d0af4ad2cbd419115b453d811c141b80d872b, which is Robert's refactoring of
> getting the server hostname for GSS, SSPI, and SSL in libpq.
So, we have no buildfarm co
<5bih4k+4jfl6m39j...@guerrillamail.com> writes:
> How should I mark a function which calls CURRENT_DATE? Parallel safe or
> parallel restricted?
> pg_proc shows that now() is marked as restricted, but transaction_timestamp()
> is marked as safe.
That's certainly silly, because they're equivalen
Fabien COELHO writes:
>> In psql, if backslash followed by [CR]LF is interpreted as a
>> continuation symbol, commands like these seem problematic
>> on Windows since backslash is the directory separator:
>>
>> \cd \
>> \cd c:\somepath\
>>
>> Shell invocations also come to mind:
>> \! dir \
> T
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
