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

> > I updated the patch a bit further: simplified the function name > (s/build_subquery_rel_tlists/build_subquery_tlists/), and revised comments a > little bit. Attached is an updated version > (postgres-fdw-subquery-support-v14.patch). And I rebased another patch for > PHVs against that patch,

Re: [HACKERS] Potential data loss of 2PC files

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> Are you talking about >> /* >> * Now we can mark ourselves as out of the commit critical section: a >> *

Re: [HACKERS] Potential data loss of 2PC files

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > I don't have anything more to review in this patch. I will leave that > commitfest entry in "needs review" status for few days in case anyone > else wants to review it. If none is going to review it, we can

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

Server crash(failed assertion) when two "insert" in one SQL: Step to reproduce: create table t(a int, b int) partition by range(a); create table t_p1 partition of t for values from (1) to (100); create table t_p2 partition of t for values from (100) to (200); create table t_p3 partition of t for

Re: [HACKERS] Shrink volume of default make output

Jim Nasby writes: > The attached hack doesn't quiet everything, but makes a significant > difference, 1588 lines down to 622, with 347 being make -C (each of > those was a make -j4 after a make clean). > If folks are interested in this I can look at quieting the

Re: [HACKERS] Shrink volume of default make output

On 3 January 2017 at 05:37, Jim Nasby wrote: > The recent thread about compiler warnings got me thinking about how it's > essentially impossible to notice warnings with default make output. Perhaps > everyone just uses make -s by default, though that's a bit annoying

Re: [HACKERS] Odd behavior with PG_TRY

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 1/2/17 9:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Correct coding would be >> >> volatile TupleDesc desc = slot->tts_tupleDescriptor; >> CallbackState * volatile myState = (CallbackState *) self; >> PLyTypeInfo *

Re: [HACKERS] Add support to COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 12/30/16 9:28 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: >> The attached patch is reworked from a previous one [1] to better deal >> with get_object_address and pg_get_object_address. >> >> Regards, >> >> [1]

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

On 2017/01/03 19:04, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi wrote: > On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Amit Langote wrote: >> >> Attached patch should fix the same. > > I have applied attached patch, server crash for range is fixed, but still > getting crash for multi-level list partitioning insert. > > postgres=#

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm also -1 on this idea. If we're going to provide backwards > compatibility, we should just leave the old names in the core. > Providing an extension is more work for *everybody* --- for us, and > for the users who will have

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables

Hello Pavel, PLEASE, could you remove the parts of emails you are not responding to when replying in the thread? THANKS. The current status is that both proposals are useless because the use case needs "some" transactional property for security. But probably some improvements are possible.

[HACKERS] Logical decoding - filtering tables

Hi, I'm developing a logical decoding plugin to extract changes from the database. This is working pretty well so far, but I have a question on the architectural aspect of the application. I want to filter changes based on the tables that are subscribed for CDC in my application and avoid network

Re: [HACKERS] parallelize queries containing subplans

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > Now, we can further extend this to parallelize queries containing > correlated subplans like below: > > explain select * from t1 where t1.i in (select t2.i from t2 where t2.i=t1.i); > QUERY

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

On 12/14/2016 01:33 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: I just noticed that the manual for CREATE ROLE says: Note that older clients might lack support for the MD5 authentication mechanism that is needed to work with passwords that are stored encrypted. That's is incorrect. The alternative to MD5

Re: [HACKERS] Assignment of valid collation for SET operations on queries with UNKNOWN types.

Thank you all for inputs. Kindly help me clarify the scope of the patch. >However, I thought the idea was to silently coerce affected columns from >unknown to text. This doesn't look like the behavior we want: This patch prevents creation of relation with unknown columns and in addition fixes

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > I noticed a bug in your latest revision: > >> + /* >> +* In HJ_NEED_NEW_OUTER, we already selected the current inner batch for >> +* reading from. If there is a shared hash table, we may have already >> +*

Re: [HACKERS] Potential data loss of 2PC files

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > I am wondering what happens if a 2PC file gets created, at the time of > checkpoint we flush the pg_twophase directory, then the file gets > removed. Do we need to flush the directory to ensure that the

Re: [HACKERS] Logical decoding - filtering tables

On 3 January 2017 at 17:11, valeriof wrote: > My question is if there is a way to call some sort of initializer where I > pass all the filtering data information beforehand, so that I can keep > calling the pg_logical_slot_get_binary_changes without having to >

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:23 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: > + /* Check if wal_segment_size is in the power of 2 */ > + for (i = 0;; i++, pow2 = pow(2, i)) > + if (pow2 >= wal_segment_size) > + break;

Re: [HACKERS] pg_sequence catalog

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 12/1/16 9:47 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote: >> I think this patch looks good now so I am setting it to ready for committer. > > committed, thanks The regression tests for hot standby check fails since it

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

Hi 2016-07-21 6:57 GMT+02:00 David Fetter : > Folks, > > Please find attached a patch which makes it possible to disallow > UPDATEs and DELETEs which lack a WHERE clause. As this changes query > behavior, I've made the new GUCs PGC_SUSET. > > What say? > > Thanks to Gurjeet

Re: [HACKERS] Measuring replay lag

On 21 December 2016 at 21:14, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> I agree that the capability to measure the remote_apply lag is very useful. >> Also I want to measure the remote_write and remote_flush

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2016/12/27 18:30, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi wrote: > > Hi Amit, > > > > I have pulled latest sources from git and tried to create multi-level > > partition, getting a server crash, below are steps to reproduce.

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest 2017-01 will begin soon!

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > I changed the status to "In Progress". Thanks for covering my absence. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] Potential data loss of 2PC files

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> I am wondering what happens if a 2PC file gets created, at the time of >> checkpoint we flush the pg_twophase directory,

Re: [HACKERS] Potential data loss of 2PC files

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Are you talking about > /* > * Now we can mark ourselves as out of the commit critical section: a > * checkpoint starting after this will certainly see the gxact as a > * candidate for

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

On 3 January 2017 at 15:50, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> Trying to fit recovery targets into one parameter was really not >> feasible, though I tried. > > What was the problem? There are 5 different

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables

** PLEASE ** COULD YOU REMOVE THE PARTS OF EMAILS YOU ARE NOT RESPONDING TO WHEN REPLYING IN THE THREAD? ** THANKS ** [...] Then B believes that A succeeded, which is not the case. No, just your design is unhappy SELECT A(..) SET SESSION VARIABLE status_ok = false;

Re: [HACKERS] Add support to COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE

On 12/30/16 9:28 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > The attached patch is reworked from a previous one [1] to better deal > with get_object_address and pg_get_object_address. > > Regards, > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150317171836.gc10...@momjian.us The syntax we have used

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

On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 07:57:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 12:34 PM, David Fetter wrote: > > I've rolled your patches into this next one and clarified the commit > > message, as there appears to have been some confusion about the scope. > > Not

Re: [HACKERS] Broken atomics code on PPC with FreeBSD 10.3

Robert Haas writes: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> After further study, I'm inclined to just propose that we flip the default >> width of pg_atomic_flag in generic-gcc.h: use int not char if both are >> available. The only modern

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > If they're maintained, then they'll be updated. I don't have any > sympathy if they aren't maintained. > Updating may be non-trivial effort even if they are maintained. E.g. some project may need to support both 9.6 and

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

On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 11:59:19AM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Hi > I am sending review of this patch > > 1. there are not any problem with patching, compiling, doc > 2. the patch is simple, the documentation is good enough > 3. all regress tests passed without problems > > My questions: > >

Re: [HACKERS] multivariate statistics (v19)

On 01/03/2017 02:42 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote: On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 3:20 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: attached is v21 of the patch series, rebased to current master (resolving the duplicate OID and a few trivial merge conflicts), and also fixing some of the issues you

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On 3 January 2017 at 15:44, Robert Haas wrote: > Yeah. I don't think there's any way to get around the fact that there > will be bigger latency spikes in some cases with larger WAL files. One way would be for the WALwriter to zerofill new files ahead of time, thus

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 3 January 2017 at 15:44, Robert Haas wrote: >> Yeah. I don't think there's any way to get around the fact that there >> will be bigger latency spikes in some cases with larger WAL files. > >

Re: [HACKERS] Broken atomics code on PPC with FreeBSD 10.3

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> A survey of s_lock.h shows that we prefer char-width slock_t only on >>> these architectures: >>> >>> x86 >>> sparc (but not sparcv9, there we use int) >>> m68k >>> vax > >> I don't think that's right, because on my MacBook

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

* Vladimir Rusinov (vrusi...@google.com) wrote: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > If they're maintained, then they'll be updated. I don't have any > > > sympathy if they aren't maintained. > > > > Updating may be non-trivial effort even if they are

Re: [HACKERS] Add support to COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 12:06 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Instead of changing get_object_address_unqualified(), > get_object_address_unqualified() and pg_get_object_address(), should > we just stick get_database_name(MyDatabaseId) as object name in > gram.y? No.

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 2 January 2017 at 21:23, Jim Nasby wrote: > >> It's not clear from the thread that there is consensus that this feature is >> desired. In particular, the performance aspects of changing

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables

Hello again, *** PLEASE, could you remove the parts of emails you are not responding to when replying in the thread? THANKS. *** [...] Did I understand? I guess that the answer is "no":-) When you are running under only one transaction, then you don't need to solve reset variables on

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

Vladamir, all, * Vladimir Rusinov (vrusi...@google.com) wrote: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > > Yeah, let's make the life of users just easier if we can, without any > > extension. Some people are likely going to forget to enable it

Re: [HACKERS] An isolation test for SERIALIZABLE READ ONLY DEFERRABLE

On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 4:38 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > To be able to do this, the patch modifies the isolation tester so that > it recognises wait_event SafeSnapshot. I'm not going to say that's unacceptable, but it's certainly not beautiful. -- Robert Haas

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Reload SSL certificates on SIGHUP

Magnus Hagander writes: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:02 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Before we leave this area, though, there is a loose end that requires >> more thought. That is, what about passphrase-protected server keys? >> ... >> 2. Add a password callback

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

On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > Trying to fit recovery targets into one parameter was really not > feasible, though I tried. What was the problem? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Reload SSL certificates on SIGHUP

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 1/2/17 10:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Before we leave this area, though, there is a loose end that requires >> more thought. That is, what about passphrase-protected server keys? > I don't have experience with this in practice, but

Re: [HACKERS] merging some features from plpgsql2 project

2017-01-03 16:23 GMT+01:00 Merlin Moncure : > On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Jim Nasby > wrote: > > On 12/27/16 4:56 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Pavel Stehule > > >> wrote: > >>>

Re: [HACKERS] What is "index returned tuples in wrong order" for recheck supposed to guard against?

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Regina Obe wrote: >> cmp would return 0 if the estimated distance returned by the index AM were >> greater than the actual distance. >> The estimated distance can be less than the actual distance, but it isn't >> allowed to be more. See

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE .. ALTER COLUMN .. ERROR: attribute .. has wrong type

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:25:05AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: >> > I don't have a clear recollection how I solved this in July; possibly by >> > restoring the (historic, partition) table from backup. >> > >> > Last week

Re: [HACKERS] Broken atomics code on PPC with FreeBSD 10.3

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> But that doesn't really detract from my point, which is that it's >> totally silly for us to imagine that char and word-wide atomic ops are >> interchangeable on all platforms and we can flip a coin to decide which

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 3 January 2017 at 13:45, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> On 2 January 2017 at 21:23, Jim Nasby

Re: [HACKERS] rewrite HeapSatisfiesHOTAndKey

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > Okay, but I think if we know how much is the additional cost in > average and worst case, then we can take a better call. Yeah. We shouldn't just rip out optimizations that are inconvenient without doing some test of

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

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 3 January 2017 at 15:50, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> Trying to fit recovery targets into one parameter was really not

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On 2 January 2017 at 21:23, Jim Nasby wrote: > It's not clear from the thread that there is consensus that this feature is > desired. In particular, the performance aspects of changing segment size from > a C constant to a variable are in question. Someone with access

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables

2017-01-03 13:03 GMT+01:00 Fabien COELHO : > > Hello Pavel, > > PLEASE, could you remove the parts of emails you are not responding to > when replying in the thread? THANKS. > > The current status is that both proposals are useless because the use case > needs "some"

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On 3 January 2017 at 13:45, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 2 January 2017 at 21:23, Jim Nasby wrote: >> >>> It's not clear from the thread that there is consensus that this

Re: [HACKERS] pg_sequence catalog

On 1/3/17 7:23 AM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote: > The regression tests for hot standby check fails since it uses the > following statement: > -select min_value as sequence_min_value from hsseq; > which is no longer supported I guess. It should be modified as following: > select min_value as

Re: [HACKERS] background sessions

On 1/3/17 1:26 AM, amul sul wrote: > One more requirement for pg_background is session, command_qh, > response_qh and worker_handle should be last longer than current > memory context, for that we might need to allocate these in > TopMemoryContext. Please find attach patch does the same change in

Re: [HACKERS] DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 12/1/16 9:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> I think it would be better to get rid of objargs and have objname be a >> general Node that can contain more specific node types so that there is >> some

Re: [HACKERS] merging some features from plpgsql2 project

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 12/27/16 4:56 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Pavel Stehule >> wrote: >>> >>> First I describe my initial position. I am strongly against introduction >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Logical decoding - filtering tables

Craig Ringer-3 wrote > Take a look at how pglogical does it in its replication set handling > and relation metadata cache. I checked it out but for what I understand it uses the inline parameter. Would it be possible to store this info in some config table and then run a select from inside the

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

On 12/21/2016 04:09 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: Thanks for having a look! Attached is a new version, with that bug fixed. I have been able more advanced testing without the crash and things seem to work properly. The attached set of tests is also able to pass for all the combinations of hba

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables

2017-01-03 15:40 GMT+01:00 Fabien COELHO : > > Hello again, > > *** PLEASE, could you remove the parts of emails you are not responding to > when replying in the thread? THANKS. *** > > [...] Did I understand? >>> >> > I guess that the answer is "no":-) > > When you are

Re: [HACKERS] cast result of copyNode()

On 12/31/16 11:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > But doesn't this result in a boatload of warnings on compilers that > don't have typeof()? > Also, if your answer is "you shouldn't get any warnings because > copyObject is already declared to return void *", then why aren't > we just relying on that today?

Re: [HACKERS] Add support to COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE

Hi Ashutosh, First of all thanks for your review. On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:06 AM, Ashutosh Bapat < ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > The patch has white space error > git apply /mnt/hgfs/tmp/comment_on_current_database_v1.patch > /mnt/hgfs/tmp/comment_on_current_database_v1.patch:52:

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Yeah, let's make the life of users just easier if we can, without any > extension. Some people are likely going to forget to enable it anyway, > and some more don't like installing the package dedicated to

Re: [HACKERS] multivariate statistics (v19)

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 3:20 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > attached is v21 of the patch series, rebased to current master (resolving > the duplicate OID and a few trivial merge conflicts), and also fixing some > of the issues you reported. I wanted to test the grouping

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:55 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > In the hope of making things better in 10.0, I remove my objection. If > people want to use wal_level = minimal they can restart their server > and they can find that out in the release notes. > > Should we set wal_level

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On 12/30/16 9:10 AM, Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote: > cmake_v2_2_c_define.patch > > Small chages in c.h . At first it is “#pragma fenv_access (off)” it is > necessary if we use /fp:strict for MSVC compiler. Without this pragma we > can’t calc floats for const variables in compiller time (2 * M_PI for >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Reload SSL certificates on SIGHUP

On 1/2/17 10:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Before we leave this area, though, there is a loose end that requires > more thought. That is, what about passphrase-protected server keys? I don't have experience with this in practice, but my hunch would be that you can continue to use passphrases as

Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki > wrote: >> >> > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org >> > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Robert

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables

2017-01-03 17:33 GMT+01:00 Fabien COELHO : > > ** PLEASE ** > > COULD YOU REMOVE THE PARTS OF EMAILS YOU ARE NOT RESPONDING TO WHEN > REPLYING IN THE THREAD? > > ** THANKS ** > > [...] Then B believes that A succeeded, which is not the case. >>> >> >> No, just

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables

** PLEASE ** COULD YOU REMOVE THE PARTS OF EMAILS YOU ARE NOT RESPONDING TO WHEN REPLYING IN THE THREAD? ** THANKS ** Hmmm. It seems that you can't. You should, really. If you use patterns that I wrote - the security context will be valid always. No: This pattern assumes

Re: [HACKERS] merging some features from plpgsql2 project

2017-01-03 18:41 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby : > On 1/3/17 11:19 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> 2) There's no way to incrementally change those values for a >> single >> function. If you've set extra_errors = 'all' globally, a >> single >>

Re: [HACKERS] background sessions

2017-01-03 19:39 GMT+05:00 Peter Eisentraut : > On 1/3/17 1:26 AM, amul sul wrote: > > One more requirement for pg_background is session, command_qh, > > response_qh and worker_handle should be last longer than current > > memory context, for that we might need

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE .. ALTER COLUMN .. ERROR: attribute .. has wrong type

On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 11:45:33AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > ts=# begin; drop view umts_eric_ch_switch_view, > > eric_umts_rnc_utrancell_view, umts_eric_cell_integrity_view; ALTER TABLE > > eric_umts_rnc_utrancell_metrics ALTER COLUMN PMSUMPACKETLATENCY_000 TYPE > > BIGINT USING

Re: [HACKERS] merging some features from plpgsql2 project

On 1/2/17 1:51 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: 1) Neither is enabled by default, so 90% of users have no idea they exist. Obviously that's an easy enough fix, but... We can strongly talk about it - there can be a chapter in plpgsql doc. Now, the patterns and antipatterns are not officially

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 06:46:32PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Is this a big enough boo that we actually want to reset the master repo to get > rid of it? > > If so, we need to do it *now* beore people get a chance to mirror it > properly.. > > Thoughts? > > If not, just a revert should

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 1/3/17 11:57 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> I've pushed a reset to the master repo. Working on the mirror now. >> > > Please don't forget github. :) > > Handled, thanks for the reminder. -- Magnus Hagander Me:

Re: [HACKERS] merging some features from plpgsql2 project

2017-01-03 17:57 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby : > On 1/2/17 1:51 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> 1) Neither is enabled by default, so 90% of users have no idea they >> exist. Obviously that's an easy enough fix, but... >> >> We can strongly talk about it - there can be a

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017

On 01/03/2017 07:49 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 06:46:32PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: Is this a big enough boo that we actually want to reset the master repo to get rid of it? If so, we need to do it *now* beore people get a chance to mirror it properly.. Thoughts? If

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables

On 1/3/17 10:33 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: ** PLEASE ** COULD YOU REMOVE THE PARTS OF EMAILS YOU ARE NOT RESPONDING TO WHEN REPLYING IN THE THREAD? ** THANKS ** +1. Frankly, I've been skipping most of your (Pavel) replies in this thread because of this. -- Jim Nasby, Data

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 01/03/2017 07:49 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 06:46:32PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >>> Is this a big enough boo that we actually want to reset the master repo >>> to get >>> rid of it?

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017

On 1/3/17 11:57 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: I've pushed a reset to the master repo. Working on the mirror now. Please don't forget github. :) -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble!

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017

On 01/03/2017 07:57 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 01/03/2017 07:49 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 06:46:32PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: Is this a big enough boo that we actually want to reset

Re: [HACKERS] Broken atomics code on PPC with FreeBSD 10.3

Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Tom Lane wrote: A survey of s_lock.h shows that we prefer char-width slock_t only on these architectures: x86 sparc (but not sparcv9, there we use int) m68k vax

Re: [HACKERS] merging some features from plpgsql2 project

On 1/3/17 11:19 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: 2) There's no way to incrementally change those values for a single function. If you've set extra_errors = 'all' globally, a single function can't say "turn off the too many rows setting for this

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

On 3 January 2017 at 16:47, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 3 January 2017 at 15:50, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Simon Riggs

Re: [HACKERS] merging some features from plpgsql2 project

On 1/3/17 9:58 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > ** The real problem is that we have no mechanism for allowing a PL's > language/syntax/API to move forward without massive backwards compatibility > problems. ** Just got back from break :-). Have some thoughts on this. Backwards

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

On 01/03/2017 08:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 3 January 2017 at 15:50, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: Trying to fit

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 01/03/2017 07:57 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Heikki Linnakangas >> wrote: >> >> On 01/03/2017 07:49 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 06:57:44PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > I'm leaning for +1 for resetting. It'll be a pain for any mirrors of the > repo, but I think the clean history is worth it. > > > > It seems bruce pushed a whole bunch of merge conflicts, and possibly more. I > think

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017

Magnus Hagander writes: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> Ok. Now let's wait for the fallout from the reset. This is an interesting >> experiment, we'll find out how many people are annoyed by a reset :-). > Yeah, and how many

Re: [HACKERS] pg_sequence catalog

On 01/03/2017 03:30 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 1/3/17 7:23 AM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote: The regression tests for hot standby check fails since it uses the following statement: -select min_value as sequence_min_value from hsseq; which is no longer supported I guess. It should be modified as

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables

2017-01-03 18:52 GMT+01:00 Fabien COELHO : > > ** PLEASE ** >>> COULD YOU REMOVE THE PARTS OF EMAILS YOU ARE NOT RESPONDING TO WHEN >>> REPLYING IN THE THREAD? >>> ** THANKS ** >> >> > Hmmm. It seems that you can't. You should, really. I am sorry - The

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017

Magnus Hagander writes: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Somehow the reset is clobbering local configuration on some members? > I doubt that. I think that was probably never configured, it just didn't > show up when everything was

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE .. ALTER COLUMN .. ERROR: attribute .. has wrong type

Justin Pryzby writes: I can cause the error at will on the existing table, That's good news, at least. 1. Please trigger it with "\set VERBOSITY verbose" enabled, so we can see the exact source location --- there are a couple of instances of that text. 2. Even better

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017

Magnus Hagander writes: >> Ok. Now let's wait for the fallout from the reset. This is an interesting >> experiment, we'll find out how many people are annoyed by a reset :-). > I bet a number of buildfarm machines will dislike it :( Early returns don't look good, eg on

Re: [HACKERS] Cluster wide option to control symbol case folding

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Lewis, Ian (Microstar Laboratories) wrote: > Personally, I believe such an option would increase, not decrease the > number of people who could relatively easily use PostgreSQL. If that is > right it is a strong argument for such a modal

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update copyright for 2017

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: > >> Ok. Now let's wait for the fallout from the reset. This is an > interesting > >> experiment, we'll find out how many people are annoyed by a reset :-). > > > I bet a number of

  1   2   >