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

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > I also have longer term plans to show the first and third of them > running with the read-only transaction moved to a standby server. > Kevin Grittner gave me the idea of multi-server isolation tests when I >

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Amit Khandekar wrote: > Thanks Ashutosh for the feedback. > > On 6 January 2017 at 17:04, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Amit Khandekar >> wrote: >>>

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix a bug in how we generate partition constraints.

On 2017/01/14 13:36, Amit Langote wrote: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 6:10 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: >>> >>> I'm just saying that the problem at hand is already solved for a related >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Karl O. Pinc wrote: > I do have a question here regards code formatting. > The patch now contains: > > if (log_filepath == NULL) > { > /* Bad data. Avoid segfaults etc. and return NULL to caller. */ > break; > } > > I'm

Re: [HACKERS] Too many autovacuum workers spawned during forced auto-vacuum

On 13 January 2017 at 19:15, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I think this is the same problem as reported in > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAMkU=1yE4YyCC00W_GcNoOZ4X2qxF7x5DUAR_kMt-Ta=ypy...@mail.gmail.com Ah yes, this is the same problem. Not sure why I didn't land

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: Grouped base relation

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Antonin Houska wrote: > Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Antonin Houska wrote: >> > Attached is a draft patch that lets partial aggregation happen at base >> >

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Clarifying "server starting" messaging in pg_ctl start without --wait

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/11/17 11:20 AM, Ryan Murphy wrote: >> Thanks for the review Beena, I'm glad the patch is ready to go! > > committed, thanks Sorry for speaking up late. This change may confuse the users who run

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

Thanks Ashutosh for the feedback. On 6 January 2017 at 17:04, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Amit Khandekar > wrote: >> Currently an Append plan node does not execute its subplans in >> parallel. There is no

Re: [HACKERS] Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 07:20:40 -0600 "Karl O. Pinc" wrote: > On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 14:54:44 +0900 > Michael Paquier wrote: > > > I think that's all I have for this patch. > I'd like to submit with it an addendum patch that > makes symbols out of some

Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling)

On 2016-10-31 09:06:39 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-09-14 19:28:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund writes: > > > On 2016-09-12 19:35:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Here's a draft patch that is just meant to investigate what the planner > > changes might look

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

On 2017/01/14 6:39, Jeff Janes wrote: I've tested this patch against 9.6.stable-2d443ae1b0121e15265864d2b21 and 10.dev-0563a3a8b59150bf3cc8, and in both cases it fixes the original problem. Thanks for testing! I do get a compiler warning: foreign.c: In function 'CreateLocalJoinPath':

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

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> Do you think that expanding the wait

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

On 15/01/17 23:57, Erik Rijkers wrote: > On 2017-01-15 23:20, Petr Jelinek wrote: > >> 0001-Add-PUBLICATION-catalogs-and-DDL-v18.patch >> 0002-Add-SUBSCRIPTION-catalog-and-DDL-v18.patch >> 0003-Define-logical-replication-protocol-and-output-plugi-v18.patch >>

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

On 2017-01-15 23:20, Petr Jelinek wrote: 0001-Add-PUBLICATION-catalogs-and-DDL-v18.patch 0002-Add-SUBSCRIPTION-catalog-and-DDL-v18.patch 0003-Define-logical-replication-protocol-and-output-plugi-v18.patch 0004-Add-logical-replication-workers-v18.patch

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

> Yes, but it was related to the idea of having `ArrayRef` and `JsonbRef` nodes > for specific types. Since now there is generic `SubscriptingRef` node, I think > it should be ok. Sorry I misunderstood it. > Just to be clear - as far as I understood, these compilation problems were > caused not

[HACKERS] FYI: git worktrees as replacement for "rsync the CVSROOT"

Not sure how many people still use [1], as referenced by our git wiki[2], but it appears git worktrees are a viable replacement for that technique. In short, if you're already in your checkout: git worktree add ../9.6 REL9_6_STABLE would give you a checkout of 9.6 in the ../9.6 directory.

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

On 15/01/17 20:20, Euler Taveira wrote: > On 15-01-2017 15:13, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> I am not quite sure I agree with this. Either it's system object and we >> don't replicate it (which I would have considered to be anything with >> Oid < FirstNormalObjectId) or it's user made and then it should

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

On 15-01-2017 15:13, Petr Jelinek wrote: > I am not quite sure I agree with this. Either it's system object and we > don't replicate it (which I would have considered to be anything with > Oid < FirstNormalObjectId) or it's user made and then it should be > replicated. Filtering by schema name is

Re: [HACKERS] Fixing matching of boolean index columns to sort ordering

Michael Paquier writes: > Bah. I was sure I was missing something, still I would have thought > that the index scan is cheaper than the bitmap index scan with ORDER > BY. As far as I can see, this patch is not the most elegant thing, but > it has value. So marked as

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

On 06/01/17 21:26, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > 0005-Add-separate-synchronous-commit-control-for-logical--v16.patch.gz > > This looks a little bit hackish. I'm not sure how this would behave > properly when either synchronous_commit or > logical_replication_synchronous_commit is changed at run time

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

On 11/01/17 22:30, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/11/17 3:35 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> On 11/01/17 18:32, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> On 1/11/17 3:29 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: Okay, looking into my notes, I originally did this because we did not allow adding tables without pkeys to

Re: [HACKERS] Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 14:54:44 +0900 Michael Paquier wrote: > I think that's all I have for this patch. I'd like to submit with it an addendum patch that makes symbols out of some constants. I'll see if I can get that done soon. Karl Free Software:

Re: [HACKERS] ICU integration

Hi 2016-12-28 3:50 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut : > Updated patch attached. > > The previous round of reviews showed that there was general agreement on > the approach. So I have focused on filling in the gaps, added ICU > support to all the locale-using places,

Re: [HACKERS] Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function

Le 15/01/2017 à 06:54, Michael Paquier a écrit : > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Gilles Darold > wrote: >> Le 13/01/2017 à 14:09, Michael Paquier a écrit : >>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Gilles Darold >>> wrote: Le 13/01/2017 à