Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 08:52:25PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I'm still not seeing any value in putting this sort of info into > > a documentation section that's distinct from the release notes. > > We've used links to wiki

Re: [HACKERS] Hang in pldebugger after git commit : 98a64d0

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> I think it should be the responsibility of >> WaitEventSetWaitBlock() to reset the event, if needed, before calling >> WaitForMultipleObjects(). >> > > If we want to change WaitEventSetWaitBlock then ideally we need

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: >> (Robert you were in this set at this point), and the same thing was >> concluded during the informal lunch meeting at PGcon. The point is, >> the existing SCRAM

Re: [HACKERS] Hang in pldebugger after git commit : 98a64d0

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 2016-12-12 16:46:38 +0900, Michael Paquier

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 1:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 3:02 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> Aside from the above, I found few other issues and fixed them in the >> attached patches. Descriptions follow: > > To avoid any

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm still not seeing any value in putting this sort of info into > a documentation section that's distinct from the release notes. > We've used links to wiki pages in the past when the information > seemed to be in flux, and

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> On 12/16/16 11:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> If we were going to do anything about this, >>> my vote would be to remove sql_inheritance. > >> Go for it. > >> Let's

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

Michael, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > >> On 12/15/16 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >> > I don't follow why we can't change the

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API

Bruce Momjian writes: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 07:19:43PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> I really don't see why we're resisting Josh's idea of putting a more >> complex set of migration instructions in the documentation someplace. >> Seems useful to me. Sure, we'd have to

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 12/16/16 11:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> If we were going to do anything about this, >> my vote would be to remove sql_inheritance. > Go for it. > Let's also remove the table* syntax then. Meh --- that might break existing

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 07:19:43PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I am fine with the release note, or the release notes plus a link to a > > wiki, like we have done in the past with complex fixes in minor > > releases: > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I am fine with the release note, or the release notes plus a link to a > wiki, like we have done in the past with complex fixes in minor > releases: > > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/20110408pg_upgrade_fix > > I

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> On 12/15/16 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> > I don't follow why we can't change the syntax for CREATE USER to allow >> > specifying the verifier type

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 04:16:36PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 12/15/2016 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Magnus Hagander writes: > >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>> You are saying this is more massive than any other change we

Re: [HACKERS] Creating a DSA area to provide work space for parallel execution

Robert Haas wrote: > I am not sure the issue was time so much as the ability to foresee all > the problems we'd want to solve. I think all that movement is okay. It's not like we're breaking things to no purpose. The amount of effort that has to go into making extensions compile with changed

Re: [HACKERS] Creating a DSA area to provide work space for parallel execution

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> > Thoughts? >> >> Hearing no objections, I've gone ahead and committed this. If that >> makes somebody really

Re: [HACKERS] Creating a DSA area to provide work space for parallel execution

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Yea, I don't think that's good either. I'm all for evolving APIs when > necessary, but constantly breaking the same API release after release > seems indicative of needing to spend a bit more time on it in the first >

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 12/15/16 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > I don't follow why we can't change the syntax for CREATE USER to allow > > specifying the verifier type independently. > > That's what the last patch set I looked at actually does. Well,

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On 12/15/16 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > I don't follow why we can't change the syntax for CREATE USER to allow > specifying the verifier type independently. That's what the last patch set I looked at actually does. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

On 12/16/16 11:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > If we were going to do anything about this, > my vote would be to remove sql_inheritance. +1. This option is long past the intended shelf life. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump vs. TRANSFORMs

Tom, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: > > That's a good point, we might be doing things wrong in other places in > > the code by using FirstNormalObjectId on pre-8.1 servers. > > > What I suggest then is an independent patch which uses a

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

On 12/16/16 11:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > If we were going to do anything about this, > my vote would be to remove sql_inheritance. Go for it. Let's also remove the table* syntax then. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote

Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless

2016-12-16 21:18 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas : > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > why do you need special operator for negation? there is only one use > case. > > It can be solved by \if_not > > That's exactly the kind of

Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > why do you need special operator for negation? there is only one use case. > It can be solved by \if_not That's exactly the kind of thing I *don't* want to do. If you absolutely must have that and you can't wait

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 2:34 PM, David Fetter wrote: > It occurs to me this probably isn't the only GUC that's basically just > a foot gun at this point. > > Is 10 a good time to sweep and clear them? We never make any progress trying to do these things "in bulk". If you think

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:05:21AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Dmitry Ivanov > wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > Looks like "sql_inheritance" GUC is affecting partitioned tables: > > > > [breaks literally everything] > > > > I might be

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables

2016-12-15 15:36 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule : > Hi > > Most important features: >>> >>> 1. the values are stored in native types >>> 2. access to content is protected by ACL - like the content of tables >>> 3. the content is not MVCC based - no any cost of UPDATE >>> 4.

Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless

2016-12-16 18:33 GMT+01:00 David G. Johnston : > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > >> 2016-12-16 18:21 GMT+01:00 David G. Johnston >> : >> >>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Robert Haas

Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless

Robert Haas writes: > So I think it would be reasonable for somebody to implement \if, > \elseif, \endif first, with the argument having to be, precisely, a > single variable and nothing else (not even a negator). Then a future > patch could allow an expression there

Re: [HACKERS] Creating a DSA area to provide work space for parallel execution

On 2016-12-16 12:33:11 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> On 2016-12-16 11:41:49 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:25

Re: [HACKERS] Creating a DSA area to provide work space for parallel execution

On 2016-12-16 12:32:49 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2016-12-16 11:41:49 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> > Thoughts? > >> > >> Hearing no

Re: [HACKERS] Creating a DSA area to provide work space for parallel execution

Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > Thoughts? > > Hearing no objections, I've gone ahead and committed this. If that > makes somebody really unhappy I can revert it, but I am betting that > the real story is that nobody cares about

Re: [HACKERS] Make pg_basebackup -x stream the default

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Vladimir Rusinov > wrote: >> >> Usability review >> >> >> >> >> Patch sounds like a good idea and does what it supposed to do. /me in DBA >> hat

Re: [HACKERS] Performance degradation in Bitmapscan (commit 75ae538bc3168bf44475240d4e0487ee2f3bb376)

On 2016-12-16 10:12:42 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > I've got no problem with that at all, but I want to unbreak things > > more or less immediately and then you/we can further improve it later. > > Committed Thanks.

Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2016-12-16 18:21 GMT+01:00 David G. Johnston : > >> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Robert Haas >> wrote: >> >>> >>> If the expected committed patch set includes

Re: [HACKERS] Creating a DSA area to provide work space for parallel execution

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2016-12-16 11:41:49 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> >

Re: [HACKERS] Creating a DSA area to provide work space for parallel execution

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-12-16 11:41:49 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> > Thoughts? >> >> Hearing no objections, I've gone ahead and committed this. If that >>

Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless

2016-12-16 18:21 GMT+01:00 David G. Johnston : > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Robert Haas > wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Robert Haas >> wrote: >> >> - possible incremental implemention steps on this

Re: [HACKERS] Creating a DSA area to provide work space for parallel execution

On 2016-12-16 11:41:49 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > Thoughts? > > Hearing no objections, I've gone ahead and committed this. If that > makes somebody really unhappy I can revert it, but I am betting that > the real

Re: [HACKERS] invalid number of sync standbys in synchronous_standby_names

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Fujii Masao writes: >> When the number of sync standbys is set to 0 in s_s_names, the assersion >> failure happens as follows. This means that current multiple syncrep code >> assumes that the num of

Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Robert Haas > wrote: > >> - possible incremental implemention steps on this path: > >> > >> (1) minimal condition and expression, compatible with > >> a

Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> - possible incremental implemention steps on this path: >> >> (1) minimal condition and expression, compatible with >> a possible future full-blown expression syntax >> >> \if :variable >> \if not

Re: [HACKERS] Creating a DSA area to provide work space for parallel execution

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Thoughts? Hearing no objections, I've gone ahead and committed this. If that makes somebody really unhappy I can revert it, but I am betting that the real story is that nobody cares about preserving T_ID(). -- Robert

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > Attached are the two patches on top of remove-hash-wrtbuf. Patch > fix_dirty_marking_v1.patch allows to mark the buffer dirty in one of > the corner cases in _hash_freeovflpage() and avoids to mark dirty > without

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

Robert Haas writes: > An earlier version of Amit's patches tried to handle this by forcing > sql_inheritance on for partitioned tables, but it wasn't > well-implemented and I don't see the point anyway. Sure, turning off > sql_inheritance off for partitioned tables

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

Etsuro Fujita writes: > On 2016/12/16 11:25, Etsuro Fujita wrote: >> As I said upthread, an alternative I am thinking is (1) to create an >> equivalent nestloop join path using inner/outer paths of a foreign join >> path, except when that join path implements a full

Re: [HACKERS] bigint vs txid user confusion

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 3:02 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > I really wish we could just change the pg_stat_activity and > pg_stat_replication xid fields to be epoch qualified in a 64-bit wide > 'fullxid' type, or similar. I think that approach is worth considering. -- Robert

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 3:02 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > Aside from the above, I found few other issues and fixed them in the > attached patches. Descriptions follow: To avoid any further mistakes on my part, can you please resubmit these with each patch file

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. sql_inheritance

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Dmitry Ivanov wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Looks like "sql_inheritance" GUC is affecting partitioned tables: > > explain (costs off) select * from test; > QUERY PLAN -- > Append > -> Seq Scan

Re: [HACKERS] invalid number of sync standbys in synchronous_standby_names

Fujii Masao writes: > When the number of sync standbys is set to 0 in s_s_names, the assersion > failure happens as follows. This means that current multiple syncrep code > assumes that the num of sync standbys must be greater than 0. But we forgot > to forbid users from

Re: [HACKERS] Linear vs. nonlinear planner cost estimates

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > The really *critical* aspect of this, which could cost far more than a > few extra executions of a costing function, comes in if it damages > add_path's ability to prune inferior paths early. So we would not want > to simply

Re: [HACKERS] [OSSTEST PATCH 0/1] PostgreSQL db: Retry on constraint violation [and 2 more messages] [and 1 more messages]

I guess the preceding posts leave us with these guarantees about read-only transactions which we might want to make explicit in the documentation: (1) A serialization failure cannot be initially thrown on a COMMIT attempt for a read-only transaction; however, if a subtransaction catches a

Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: >> On 12/14/2016 04:57 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> >* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> >>On 12/14/16 5:15 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >>>I would

Re: [HACKERS] background sessions

2016-12-16 20:17 GMT+05:00 Peter Eisentraut : >> And one more thing... Can we have BackgroundSessionExecute() splitted >> into two parts: start query and wait for results? >> It would allow pg_background to reuse bgsession's code. > > Yes, I will look into that.

Re: [HACKERS] Hang in pldebugger after git commit : 98a64d0

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 2016-12-12 16:46:38 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> Ashutosh, could you try it and see if it improves things? >> >> So

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb problematic operators

Geoff Winkless writes: > To look at this from the other angle, is there a reason why the jsonb > indexes don't work with the jsonb_ functions but only with the > operators? Is this something that could be changed easily? Yes. No. However, if you're desperate, you could

Re: [HACKERS] background sessions

On 12/15/16 1:54 AM, Andrew Borodin wrote: > And one more thing... Can we have BackgroundSessionExecute() splitted > into two parts: start query and wait for results? > It would allow pg_background to reuse bgsession's code. Yes, I will look into that. -- Peter Eisentraut

Re: [HACKERS] Performance degradation in Bitmapscan (commit 75ae538bc3168bf44475240d4e0487ee2f3bb376)

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I've got no problem with that at all, but I want to unbreak things > more or less immediately and then you/we can further improve it later. Committed, although I realize now that doesn't fix Dilip's problem, only my

Re: [HACKERS] [OSSTEST PATCH 0/1] PostgreSQL db: Retry on constraint violation [and 2 more messages] [and 1 more messages]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Good catch! Thanks! -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

Re: [HACKERS] [OSSTEST PATCH 0/1] PostgreSQL db: Retry on constraint violation [and 2 more messages] [and 1 more messages]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> I also realized some other properties of read-only transactions >> that might interest you (and that I should probably document). >> Since the

Re: [HACKERS] Make pg_basebackup -x stream the default

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote: > Usability review > > > > > Patch sounds like a good idea and does what it supposed to do. /me in DBA > hat will be happy to have it. > > However, it makes '-x' parameter a bit confusing/surprising:

Re: [HACKERS] [OSSTEST PATCH 0/1] PostgreSQL db: Retry on constraint violation [and 2 more messages] [and 1 more messages]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > I also realized some other properties of read-only transactions > that might interest you (and that I should probably document). > Since the only way for a read-only transaction to be the on > experiencing a serialization

Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types

Am 16.12.2016 um 07:17 schrieb David Fetter: On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 03:57:33PM +0100, Peter Moser wrote: Am 05.12.2016 um 06:11 schrieb Haribabu Kommi: On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Peter Moser > wrote: We decided to follow your

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb problematic operators

On 16 December 2016 at 09:35, Craig Ringer wrote: > so it would be consistent with that to use ?? as a literal ? in the > output query. > > This is also what PgJDBC does, per > https://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/head/statement.html . So > it's consistent . "Me too".

Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Masahiko Sawada >> wrote: >>> Attached latest v12 patch. >>> I changed

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

On 2016/12/16 11:25, Etsuro Fujita wrote: As I said upthread, an alternative I am thinking is (1) to create an equivalent nestloop join path using inner/outer paths of a foreign join path, except when that join path implements a full join, in which case a merge/hash join path is used, (2) store

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackups and slots

On 16/12/16 07:32, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Dec 16, 2016 07:27, "Michael Paquier" > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Magnus Hagander > > wrote: > > So

[HACKERS] invalid number of sync standbys in synchronous_standby_names

Hi, When the number of sync standbys is set to 0 in s_s_names, the assersion failure happens as follows. This means that current multiple syncrep code assumes that the num of sync standbys must be greater than 0. But we forgot to forbid users from setting that num to 0. This is an oversight in

Re: [HACKERS] Speedup twophase transactions

On 27 Sep 2016, at 03:30, Michael Paquier wrote:OK. I am marking this patch as returned with feedback then. Lookingforward to seeing the next investigations.. At least this review hastaught us one thing or two.So, here is brand new implementation of the same thing.Now

Re: [HACKERS] Slow I/O can break throttling of base backup

Antonin Houska wrote: > It seems to be my bug. I'll check tomorrow. I could reproduce the problem by adding sufficient sleep time to the loop. > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> I wonder if the else if (sleep > 0) at the bottom of throttle() should just >> be a

Re: [HACKERS] Cache Hash Index meta page.

Thanks Robert, I have tried to address all of the comments, On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > +bucket = _hash_hashkey2bucket(hashkey, metap->hashm_maxbucket, >metap->hashm_highmask, >

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb problematic operators

On 16 December 2016 at 17:08, Matteo Beccati wrote: > Hi, > > On 12/12/2016 05:09, Craig Ringer wrote: >> Does PDO let you double question marks to escape them, writing ?? or >> \? instead of ? or anything like that? >> >> If not, I suggest that you (a) submit a postgres patch

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb problematic operators

Hi, On 12/12/2016 05:09, Craig Ringer wrote: > Does PDO let you double question marks to escape them, writing ?? or > \? instead of ? or anything like that? > > If not, I suggest that you (a) submit a postgres patch adding > alternative operator names for ? and ?|, and (b) submit a PDO patch to

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

Hi Dmitry, On 2016/12/16 0:40, Dmitry Ivanov wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Looks like "sql_inheritance" GUC is affecting partitioned tables: > > explain (costs off) select * from test; > QUERY PLAN -- > Append > -> Seq Scan on test > -> Seq Scan

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

On 2016/12/16 17:38, Greg Stark wrote: > Just poking around with partitioning. I notice that "\d parent" > doesn't list all the partitions, suggesting to use \d+ but a plain > "\d" does indeed list the partitions. That seems a bit strange and > also probably impractical if you have hundreds or

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

On 2016/12/16 17:02, Amit Langote wrote: > [PATCH 2/7] Change how RelationGetPartitionQual() and related code works > > Since we always want to recurse, ie, include the parent's partition > constraint (if any), get rid of the argument recurse. > > Refactor out the code doing the mapping of

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

Just poking around with partitioning. I notice that "\d parent" doesn't list all the partitions, suggesting to use \d+ but a plain "\d" does indeed list the partitions. That seems a bit strange and also probably impractical if you have hundreds or thousands of partitions. Has this come up in

Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> Attached latest v12 patch. >> I changed behavior of "N (standby_list)" to use the priority method >> and incorporated some

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

On 2016/12/14 1:32, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:58 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> Attaching the above patch, along with some other patches posted earlier, >> and one more patch fixing another bug I found. Patch descriptions follow: >> >>