Re: [HACKERS] Add pgstathashindex() to get hash index table statistics.

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: I've successfully applied the patch on the latest head and ran a regression tests without any failure. There is no major changes. However, I've some minor comments on the patch: +/* + * HASH_ALLOCATABLE_PAGE_SZ

Re: [HACKERS] emergency outage requiring database restart

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: > Still getting checksum failures. Over the last 30 days, I see the > following. Since enabling checksums FWICT none of the damage is > permanent and rolls back with the transaction. So creepy! The checksums still

Re: [HACKERS] Floating point comparison inconsistencies of the geometric types

Hello. (I apologize in advance for possible inaccurate wording on maths, which might cause confusion..) At Wed, 11 Jan 2017 16:37:59 +0100, Emre Hasegeli wrote in > > - Floating point comparisons for

Re: [HACKERS] pageinspect: Hash index support

Hi, > 1. > +static Page > +verify_hash_page(bytea *raw_page, int flags) > > Few checks for meta page are missing, refer _hash_checkpage. okay, I have added the checks for meta page as well. Please refer to attached patch. > > 2. > + if (!superuser()) > + ereport(ERROR, > +

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

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote: > On the topic of binaries, there's going to be another patch renaming them. > Those will have no aliases as it's trivial to work-around (symlinks, shell > scripts, etc) and not so trivial to implement in a portable

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Generate fmgr prototypes automatically

Peter Eisentraut writes: > Generate fmgr prototypes automatically BTW, I notice some suspicious-looking behavior with -j: $ make -j8 -s Writing fmgroids.h Writing fmgroids.h Writing postgres.bki Writing fmgrprotos.h Writing fmgrtab.c Writing schemapg.h Writing

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Index Scans

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > WAIT_EVENT_PARALLEL_INDEX_SCAN is in fact btree-specific. There's no > guarantee that any other AMs the implement parallel index scans

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

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Q: OK, where is my WAL stored? > A: pg_wal > Q: How do I reset it? > A: pg_resetxlog > On the topic of binaries, there's going to be another patch renaming them. Those will have no aliases as it's trivial to

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > On 2017/01/16 11:38, Etsuro Fujita wrote: >> >> On 2017/01/14 6:39, Jeff Janes wrote: >>> >>> I do get a compiler warning: >>> >>> foreign.c: In function 'CreateLocalJoinPath': >>> foreign.c:832: warning:

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] kNN for btree

Sorry for the broken formatting in my previous message. Below is a corrected version of this message. I'd like to present a series of patches that implements k-Nearest Neighbors (kNN) search for btree, which can be used to speed up ORDER BY distance queries like this: SELECT * FROM events ORDER

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

Michael, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Perhaps we need a way for pg_ctl to realize a cold-standby case and > > throw an error or warning if --wait is specified then, but that hardly > > seems

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

Michael, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >> Perhaps we need a way for pg_ctl to realize a cold-standby

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

Andres Freund writes: > (I also noticed the previous patch should have had a catversion bump :(, > will do after the meeting). Uh, why? It isn't touching any on-disk data structure. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

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

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I thought this part was odd -- I mean, why is SysLogger_Start() being > called if the collector is not enabled? Turns out we do it and return > early if not enabled. But not in all cases -- there is one callsite

Re: [HACKERS] Causal reads take II

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:43 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > Here is a new version of my "causal reads" patch (see the earlier > thread from the 9.6 development cycle[1]), which provides a way to > avoid stale reads when load balancing with streaming replication. Thanks

Re: [HACKERS] pg_hba_file_settings view patch

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: > > updated patch attached. > > Thanks for the new version. > > > Added tap tests patch also attached. > > This begins to look

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

On 2017-01-18 16:27:53 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > ​I'd rather fail now and allow for the possibility of future implementation > of the "it might seem that..." behavior.​ That's very unlikely to happen. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes

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

On January 18, 2017 3:59:00 PM PST, Robert Haas wrote: >On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Andres Freund >wrote: >>> SELECT x, CASE WHEN x > 0 THEN generate_series(1, 5) ELSE 0 END >FROM tab; >>> >>> It might seem that this should produce five

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

* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 16:15 Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >> > For

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES with GRANT/REVOKE ON SCHEMAS

* Petr Jelinek (petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 10/01/17 17:33, Matheus de Oliveira wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Ashutosh Sharma > > wrote: > > > > > Also, should I add translations for that error message in

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

> > > Ryan try to run 'make install-world' then 'make -i installcheck-world', -i > option will ignore the error and proceed. You can check if any other tests > fails. This is a separate issue, unrelated to this patch. I do not think > we should stop from changing the status because of this. > >

[HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJEAwVE4UAmm8fr%2BNW8XTnKV6M--ACoNhL3ES8yoKL2sKhbaiw%40mail.gmail.com Let me re-summarize what's been done here to make sure I understand: Each key in GIN has its own posting tree, which is itself a btree, holding all of the tuples that contain that key.

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: Grouped base relation

On 01/19/2017 04:09 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 12:02 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Ashutosh Bapat Also, the point is naming that kind of function as aggtransmultifn would mean that it's always supposed to multiply,

Re: [HACKERS] Add pgstathashindex() to get hash index table statistics.

> However, I've some minor comments on the patch: > > +/* > + * HASH_ALLOCATABLE_PAGE_SZ represents allocatable > + * space (pd_upper - pd_lower) on a hash page. > + */ > +#define HASH_ALLOCATABLE_PAGE_SZ \ > + BLCKSZ - \ > + (SizeOfPageHeaderData +

Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers

On 2017/01/16 17:35, Masahiko Sawada wrote: On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: Long time passed since original patch proposed by Ashutosh, so I explain again

Re: [HACKERS] pg_hba_file_settings view patch

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > Added the cleanup mechanism. But the tokenize_file() function call > present in many places, But in one flow still it is possible to have > file descriptor leak because of pg_hba_rules view. Because of this >

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

I wrote: > I'll try to write something about the SRF-in-CASE issue too. Seeing > whether we can document that adequately seems like an important part > of making the decision about whether we need to block it. Here's what I came up with: This behavior also means that set-returning functions

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

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > I'll try to write something about the SRF-in-CASE issue too. Seeing > > whether we can document that adequately seems like an important part > > of making the decision about whether we need to block it. > >

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

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 16:15 Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> > For non-cold standby configurations, pg_ctl is going to return

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

Robert Haas writes: > So, one of the big reasons I use CASE is to avoid evaluating > expressions in cases where they might throw an ERROR. Like, you know: > CASE WHEN d != 0 THEN n / d ELSE NULL END > I guess it's not the end of the world if that only works for >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES with GRANT/REVOKE ON SCHEMAS

On 10/01/17 17:33, Matheus de Oliveira wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Ashutosh Sharma > wrote: > > > Also, should I add translations for that error message in other > languages (I > > can do that without help of tools

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: Grouped base relation

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:14 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 19 January 2017 at 07:32, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Ashutosh Bapat >> wrote: >>> I don't think aggcombinefn isn't there

Re: [HACKERS] macaddr 64 bit (EUI-64) datatype support

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: > > Updated patch is attached. > > > I've a few comments about the patch. > Thanks for the review. + This type can accept

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

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/18/17 8:25 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> I was actually thinking about it the other way- start out by changing >> them to both be 5m and then document next to checkpoint_timeout (and >> max_wal_size,

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

> > Jim Nasby said I shouldn't necessarily need to build the docs / the whole > world in order to review patches. But the Review form needs a `make > installworld-check`. Do I need to install the whole world in order to meet > this requirement? Happy to do so if required, but in that case, I

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

On 2017-01-18 16:56:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > I have not actually looked at 0003 at all yet. So yeah, please post > for review after you're done rebasing. Here's a rebased and lightly massaged version. I'm vanishing in a meeting for a bit, thought

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

On 2017-01-18 17:34:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > (I also noticed the previous patch should have had a catversion bump :(, > > will do after the meeting). > > Uh, why? It isn't touching any on-disk data structure. Forget what I said - I was rushing

Re: [HACKERS] Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique

On 19 January 2017 at 11:06, David Rowley wrote: > Old patch no longer applies, so I've attached a rebased patch. This > also re-adds a comment line which I mistakenly removed. (meanwhile Andres commits 69f4b9c) I should've waited a bit longer. Here's another that

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

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> SELECT x, CASE WHEN x > 0 THEN generate_series(1, 5) ELSE 0 END FROM tab; >> >> It might seem that this should produce five repetitions of input rows >> that have x > 0, and a single repetition of those that do

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

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >>So, one of the big reasons I use CASE is to avoid evaluating >>expressions in cases where they might throw an ERROR. Like, you know: >> >>CASE WHEN d != 0 THEN n / d ELSE NULL END >> >>I guess it's not the end of the

Re: [HACKERS] smallint out of range EXECUTEing prepared statement

> "Justin" == Justin Pryzby writes: Justin> Is this expected behavior ? Justin> ts=# SELECT * FROM t WHERE site_id=32768 LIMIT 1; Justin> (0 rows) Justin> ts=# PREPARE x AS SELECT * FROM t WHERE site_id=$1 LIMIT 1; Justin> PREPARE Justin> ts=# EXECUTE x(32768);

Re: [HACKERS] Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique

On 3 December 2016 at 10:26, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Dec 2, 2016, at 7:47 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: >>> Patch still applies fine to HEAD. >>> Moved to next CF with "ready for committer" status. > >> Tom,

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

On 2017-01-18 18:14:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > I'll try to write something about the SRF-in-CASE issue too. Seeing > > whether we can document that adequately seems like an important part > > of making the decision about whether we need to block it. > > Here's what I came up with:

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

Ryan Murphy writes: > So I ran "make -i installcheck-world" and it ran to completion. This is on > a freshly "git pull"ed postgres source tree. Certain tests failed, but > most succeeded. Those results look pretty broken :-( > There was no "overall" indication of

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

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Karl O. Pinc wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 15:08:09 -0600 > "Karl O. Pinc" wrote: > >> I would like to see index entries for "current_logfiles" >> so this stuff is findable. > > Attached is a v27 of the patch. > > I polished some of

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: Grouped base relation

On 19 January 2017 at 07:32, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> I don't think aggcombinefn isn't there because we couldn't write it >> for array_agg() or string_agg(). I guess, it won't be

[HACKERS] smallint out of range EXECUTEing prepared statement

Is this expected behavior ? ts=# SELECT * FROM t WHERE site_id=32768 LIMIT 1; (0 rows) ts=# PREPARE x AS SELECT * FROM t WHERE site_id=$1 LIMIT 1; PREPARE ts=# EXECUTE x(32768); ERROR: smallint out of range ts=# PREPARE y AS SELECT * FROM t WHERE site_id::int=$1 LIMIT 1; PREPARE ts=# EXECUTE

Re: [HACKERS] smallint out of range EXECUTEing prepared statement

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote: > Is this expected behavior ? ​​ > > ts=# SELECT * FROM t WHERE site_id=32768 LIMIT 1; > (0 rows) > > ts=# PREPARE x AS SELECT * FROM t WHERE site_id=$1 LIMIT 1; > PREPARE > ts=# EXECUTE x(32768); > ERROR: smallint out

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

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Karl O. Pinc wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 15:52:36 -0500 > Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Karl O. Pinc wrote: >> > Seems to me that the file format should >> > be documented if

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

* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > On 1/18/17 8:25 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >> I was actually thinking about it the other way- start out by changing > >> them to both be 5m and

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

On 17/01/17 22:43, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Petr Jelinek > wrote: >>> Is there anything stopping anyone from implementing it? >> >> No, just didn't seem priority for the functionality right now. > > Why is it OK for this to not support

Re: [HACKERS] pg_hba_file_settings view patch

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > updated patch attached. Thanks for the new version. > Added tap tests patch also attached. This begins to look really nice. I am having fun torturing it :) Here are I think my last comments: + linecxt =

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

> The on-screen output isn't all that helpful for diagnosing what went > wrong. You might learn more by looking at the regression.diffs files. > Remember that errors tend to cascade, so the first one(s) in any > particular test suite are the most important --- the rest might just > be fallout. >

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 6:22 AM, Etsuro Fujita > wrote: >> My biggest concern about GetExistingLocalJoinPath is that might not be >> extendable to the case of foreign-join paths with

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

Karl O. Pinc wrote: > @@ -511,10 +519,16 @@ int > SysLogger_Start(void) > { > pid_t sysloggerPid; > - char *filename; > > + /* > + * Logging collector is not enabled. We don't know where messages are > + * logged. Remove outdated file holding the

Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 02:30:38PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > > The latest versions document this precisely, but I agree with Peter's > > concern > > about plain "scram". Suppose it's 2025 and PostgreSQL support SASL

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: Grouped base relation

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 12:02 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> I don't think aggcombinefn isn't there because we couldn't write it >> for array_agg() or string_agg(). I guess, it won't be

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

On 2017/01/19 5:29, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Amit Langote >> wrote: >>> [ updated patches ] >> >> I committed 0004 and also fixed the related regression test

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Index Scans

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Rahila Syed wrote: > >+ /* Check if the scan for current scan keys is finished */ > >+ if (so->arrayKeyCount < btscan->btps_arrayKeyCount) > >+ *status = false; > > >I didn't clearly understand, in which scenario the arrayKeyCount is less

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Index Scans

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:11 PM, Amit Kapila > wrote: >> > > + * index_beginscan_parallel - join parallel index scan > > The name and the description doesn't sync properly, any better

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

I did a review pass over 0001 and 0002. I think the attached updated version is committable ... except for one thing. The more I look at it, the more disturbed I am by the behavioral change shown in rangefuncs.out --- that's the SRF-in-one-arm-of-CASE issue. (The changes in tsrf.out are fine

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

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Vladimir Rusinov > wrote: > > On the topic of binaries, there's going to be another patch renaming > them. > > Those will have no aliases as it's trivial

Re: [HACKERS] move collation import to backend

Jeff Janes writes: > With this commit, I'm getting 'make check' fail at initdb with the error: > 2017-01-18 07:47:50.565 PST [43691] FATAL: collation "aa_ER@saaho" for > encoding "UTF8" already exists Yeah, so are large chunks of the buildfarm. Having now read the patch,

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

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Robert Haas > wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> > >> $ cat loop.sql > >> \if :x < 1000 > >> \echo

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

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:11:20 -0600 "Karl O. Pinc" wrote: > You must write > errcode(ERRCODE_INTERNAL_ERROR) > instead of just > ERRCODE_INTERNAL_ERROR > > If you don't you get back 01000 for the error code. > v26 patch attached which fixes this. Attached are revised

Re: [HACKERS] pageinspect: Hash index support

Hi, On 01/18/2017 04:54 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: Is there a reason for keeping the input arguments for hash_bitmap_info() different from hash_page_items()? Yes, there are two reasons behind it. Firstly, we need metapage to identify the bitmap page that holds the information about the

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

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:26:46 +0900 Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Karl O. Pinc wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:08:25 +0900 > > Michael Paquier wrote: > > > >> Our ideas rather map here,

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy

On 2017-01-18 14:46, Petr Jelinek wrote: 0001-Logical-replication-support-for-initial-data-copy-v2.patch Applies and builds fine on top of the previous 5 patches. Two problems: 1. alter_subscription.sgml has an unpaired -tag, which breaks the doc-build: This is the offending patch-line:

Re: [HACKERS] Function transform optimizations versus reality

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > More generally, this is the second serious bug we've found in the last > month in the "transform" optimizations (see also bug #14479 and commit > f0774abde). I'm starting to get the feeling that that idea was an > attractive

[HACKERS] Function transform optimizations versus reality

I looked into bug #14504, https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170118144828.1432.52...@wrigleys.postgresql.org The problem is that timestamp_zone_transform() has the cute idea that it can simplify timezone('UTC', timestamptzvalue) into a RelabelType that claims the timestamptzvalue is just

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

Hi Micheal, On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:26:43 -0600 "Karl O. Pinc" wrote: > > v26 patch attached which fixes this. I was glancing over the changes to the documentation you made between the v22 and v25 and from looking at the diffs it seems the format of the current_logfiles file

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > I think that we could get a committer look at that at the least. This is sort of awkward, because it would be nice to reuse the code for the existing SHOW command rather than reinventing the wheel, but it's not

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

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:08:23 -0600 "Karl O. Pinc" wrote: > Hi Micheal, > > On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:26:43 -0600 > "Karl O. Pinc" wrote: > > > > v26 patch attached which fixes this. > > I was glancing over the changes to the documentation > you made between the

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel bitmap heap scan

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:14 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote: >> >> Please verify with the new patch. > > Patch 0001 and 0003 required to rebase on the latest head. 0002 is > still the same. I've

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: Grouped base relation

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > I don't think aggcombinefn isn't there because we couldn't write it > for array_agg() or string_agg(). I guess, it won't be efficient to > have those aggregates combined across parallel workers. I think

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Index Scans

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > Fixed. With respect to the second patch (parallel_index_opt_exec_support_v4.patch), I'm hoping it can use the new function from Dilip's bitmap heap scan patch set. See commit 716c7d4b242f0a64ad8ac4dc48c6fed6557ba12c.

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

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 15:52:36 -0500 Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Karl O. Pinc wrote: > > Seems to me that the file format should > > be documented if there's any intention that the end user > > look at or otherwise use the file's

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

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > For non-cold standby configurations, pg_ctl is going to return just as > soon as the database has finished crash recovery, which in most cases > will probably be on the order of a few seconds. /me is poleaxed. --

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

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 16:15 Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > For non-cold standby configurations, pg_ctl is going to return just as > > > soon as the database has finished crash recovery, which in most

Re: [HACKERS] emergency outage requiring database restart

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:11 AM, Ants Aasma wrote: > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >> Still getting checksum failures. Over the last 30 days, I see the >> following. Since enabling checksums FWICT none of the damage is >>

Re: [HACKERS] Improving RLS planning

Stephen Frost writes: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> Thanks for the review. Attached is an updated patch that I believe >> addresses all of the review comments so far. The code is unchanged from >> v2, but I improved the README, some comments, and the regression

Re: [HACKERS] References to arbitrary database objects that are suitable for pg_dump

Jim Nasby wrote: > Is there anything that will translate an object identity (as returned by > pg_event_trigger_ddl_commands) into class/object/subobject OIDs? If I had > that, I could use it to track objects by OID (like pg_depend does), as well > as storing the text representation. That way I

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Index Scans

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> WAIT_EVENT_PARALLEL_INDEX_SCAN is in fact btree-specific.

Re: [HACKERS] move collation import to backend

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 1/9/17 10:04 PM, Euler Taveira wrote: > > On 18-12-2016 18:30, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> Updated patch with that fix. > >> > > Peter, I reviewed and improved your patch. > > > > * I document the

Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy

On 18/01/17 17:35, Erik Rijkers wrote: > On 2017-01-18 14:46, Petr Jelinek wrote: > >> 0001-Logical-replication-support-for-initial-data-copy-v2.patch > > Applies and builds fine on top of the previous 5 patches. > > Two problems: > > 1. alter_subscription.sgml has an unpaired -tag, which

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

On 1/18/17 8:25 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > I was actually thinking about it the other way- start out by changing > them to both be 5m and then document next to checkpoint_timeout (and > max_wal_size, perhaps...) that if you go changing those parameters (eg: > bumping up checkpoint_timeout to 30

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

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-01-18 14:24:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> So I think we can push this patch now and get on with the downstream >> patches. Do you want to do the honors, or shall I? > Whatever you prefer - either way, I'll go on to rebasing the cleanup > patch

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

* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 1/18/17 8:25 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > I was actually thinking about it the other way- start out by changing > > them to both be 5m and then document next to checkpoint_timeout (and > > max_wal_size, perhaps...) that if you go

[HACKERS] [PATCH] fix typo in commit a4523c5

Attached patch fixes typo in regression test src/test/regress/sql/create_index.sql that was introduced in commit a4523c5 ("Improve planning of btree index scans using ScalarArrayOpExpr quals."). In this commit the following lines were added to create_index.sql: SET enable_indexonlyscan = OFF;

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

Hi, On 2017-01-18 08:43:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I did a review pass over 0001 and 0002. I think the attached updated > version is committable Cool. > ... except for one thing. The more I look at it, > the more disturbed I am by the behavioral change shown in rangefuncs.out > --- that's

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

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-01-18 08:43:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> ... except for one thing. The more I look at it, >> the more disturbed I am by the behavioral change shown in rangefuncs.out >> --- that's the SRF-in-one-arm-of-CASE issue. > I'm fine with leaving it as

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning vs. information_schema

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 4:17 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/01/10 14:44, Keith Fiske wrote: >> Is there any reason for the exclusion of parent tables from the pg_tables >> system catalog view? They do not show up in information_schema.tables as >> well. I believe

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

Hi, On 2017-01-18 14:24:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2017-01-18 08:43:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> ... except for one thing. The more I look at it, > >> the more disturbed I am by the behavioral change shown in rangefuncs.out > >> --- that's the

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

Hi, On January 18, 2017 12:00:12 PM PST, Tom Lane wrote: >Andres Freund writes: >> On 2017-01-18 14:24:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >>> So I think we can push this patch now and get on with the downstream >>> patches. Do you want to do the honors, or shall

Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > [ updated patches ] I committed 0004 and also fixed the related regression test not to rely on DROP .. CASCADE, which isn't always stable. The remainder of this patch set needs a rebase, and perhaps you could

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

Andres Freund writes: > Yea, have something lying around. Let me push it then when I get back from > lunch? Sure, no sweat. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

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

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > If I'm understanding your concern correctly, you're worried about the > case of a cold standby where the database is only replaying WAL but not > configured to come up as a hot standby and therefore PQping() won't ever >

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb_delete with arrays

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Magnus Hagander > wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Michael Paquier < > michael.paqu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 1:27

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

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> > If I'm understanding your concern correctly, you're worried about the >> > case of a cold

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

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Karl O. Pinc wrote: > Seems to me that the file format should > be documented if there's any intention that the end user > look at or otherwise use the file's content. > > It's fine with me if the content of current_logfiles > is supposed to be

  1   2   >