Re: [HACKERS] BUG: pg_stat_statements query normalization issues with combined queries

At Thu, 26 Jan 2017 22:34:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in <23778.1485488...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > Craig Ringer writes: > > So perhaps: > > > "The same query string may be passed to multiple invocations of > > ProcessUtility if a utility statement

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

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > Corrected as suggested. > > Updated patch attached. There is no change in the contrib patch. Got whitspace error warning while applying contrib_macaddr8_1.patch:184. diff --git

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Just a thought with an additional use case: If I want to set up a > standby for offloading queries, could I take the dump file from the > primary or another existing standby, copy it to the new standby,

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel bitmap heap scan

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > I have changed as per the comments. 0002 and 0003 are changed, 0001 is > still the same. 2 days back my colleague Rafia, reported one issue (offlist) that parallel bitmap node is not scaling as good as other nodes e.g

[HACKERS] nodes.h - comments comment

Orthography fix in nodes.h comment block.--- src/include/nodes/nodes.h.orig 2017-01-27 06:54:38.704059681 +0100 +++ src/include/nodes/nodes.h 2017-01-27 06:57:17.535250383 +0100 @@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ /* * castNode(type, ptr) casts ptr to type and, if cassert is enabled, verifies - * that the

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP

On 25/01/17 18:16, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/22/17 8:11 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> 0001 - Changes the libpqrcv_connect to use async libpq api so that it >> won't get stuck forever in case of connect is stuck. This is preexisting >> bug that also affects walreceiver but it's less visible there

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > On 1/24/17 3:26 AM, Mithun Cy wrote: > >> In my code by default, we only dump at shutdown time. If we want to > >> dump

[HACKERS] Typo in comment in postgres_fdw.c

Hi, I ran into a typo in a comment in contrib/postgres_fdw/postgres_fdw.c. Attached is a small patch for fixing that. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita diff --git a/contrib/postgres_fdw/postgres_fdw.c b/contrib/postgres_fdw/postgres_fdw.c index fbe6929..7cb9dc5 100644 ---

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres

Hi Peter, On 2016-09-30 15:24:09 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Yeah, I have committed a few of the patches now and I'll close the CF > entry now. Thanks for your research. Are you planning to push more of these at some point? - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] BUG: pg_stat_statements query normalization issues with combined queries

Craig Ringer writes: > So perhaps: > "The same query string may be passed to multiple invocations of > ProcessUtility if a utility statement invokes subcommands (e.g. ALTER > TABLE), in which case context will be set to > PROCESS_UTILITY_SUBCOMMAND, or if the user

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/24/17 3:26 AM, Mithun Cy wrote: >> In my code by default, we only dump at shutdown time. If we want to >> dump at regular interval then we need to set the GUC >> pg_autoprewarm.buff_dump_interval to

Re: [HACKERS] Microvacuum support for Hash Index

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Jesper Pedersen wrote: > On 01/23/2017 02:53 PM, Jesper Pedersen wrote: >> >> I have done some more testing with this, and have moved to the patch >> back to 'Needs Review' pending Amit's comments. >> > > Moved to "Ready for Committer".

Re: [HACKERS] pg_hba_file_settings view patch

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Haribabu Kommi writes: >> This patch currently doesn't have the code for reporting the two log >> messages that can occur in tokenize_file function. To support the same, >> I am thinking of changing

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Check interrupts during hot standby waits

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 4:06 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017-01-26 19:00:34 +, Simon Riggs wrote: >> Check interrupts during hot standby waits >> >> Branch >> -- >> master >> >> Details >> --- >>

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

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:21 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> But I don't see any proposals to actually change all uses of "xlog" to >>> "wal". What about program names, command line options, etc.? If

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Index Scans

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 6:53 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Amit Kapila > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Haribabu Kommi >> wrote: >> > I didn't find any better names

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 4:20 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-01-25 12:26:21 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> diff --git a/src/backend/access/common/tupdesc.c >> b/src/backend/access/common/tupdesc.c >> index 083c0303dc..2eb3a420ac 100644 >> ---

Re: [HACKERS] Allow interrupts on waiting standby

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 26 January 2017 at 19:20, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2017-01-26 12:24:44 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> > Currently a

Re: [HACKERS] safer node casting

On 2017-01-26 20:29:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2016-12-31 12:08:22 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> This is inspired by the dynamic_cast operator in C++, but follows the > >> syntax of the well-known makeNode() macro. > > > The analogy to

Re: [HACKERS] safer node casting

Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-12-31 12:08:22 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> This is inspired by the dynamic_cast operator in C++, but follows the >> syntax of the well-known makeNode() macro. > The analogy to dynamic_cast goes only so far, because we don't actually >

Re: [HACKERS] New SQL counter statistics view (pg_stat_sql)

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > > Overall patch looks fine to me and marking it "ready for committer". > > There is two design decision, which I leave it for committer's decision. > > 1. EXECUTE statement should show only as EXECUTE count, not the >

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Index Scans

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Amit Kapila > > wrote: > >> > > >> > +extern BlockNumber

Re: [HACKERS] safer node casting

Hi, On 2016-12-31 12:08:22 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > This is inspired by the dynamic_cast operator in C++, but follows the > syntax of the well-known makeNode() macro. The analogy to dynamic_cast goes only so far, because we don't actually support inheritance. I.e. in c++ we could

Re: [HACKERS] safer node casting

On 2017-01-26 17:27:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > #if defined(USE_ASSERT_CHECKING) && defined(PG_USE_INLINE) > > is probably a better gatekeeper in the back-branches, than gcc? > > Ah, yeah, that would work --- I'd already swapped out that business ;-)

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

Andres, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-01-26 19:01:54 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > > > I hear these complaints about postgres most frequently: 1) replication > > > sucks. 2) way too slow on analytics queries. 3) existing

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

On 2017-01-26 19:01:54 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > Andres, > > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > > I hear these complaints about postgres most frequently: 1) replication > > sucks. 2) way too slow on analytics queries. 3) existing admin tools > > suck. 4) self written admin tools

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

Andres, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > I hear these complaints about postgres most frequently: 1) replication > sucks. 2) way too slow on analytics queries. 3) existing admin tools > suck. 4) self written admin tools (required due to 3)) constantly break. > > There's a lot being

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

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > We decided s/pg_xlog/pg_wal/ was necessary because people lost their > data, and we couldn't come up with a reasonable way to change it without > the name. The tradeoff is dataloss vs. dealing with directory renaming >

Re: [HACKERS] Speedup twophase transactions

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Nikhil Sontakke wrote: >>> Umm, AFAICS, CheckPointTwoPhase() does not get called in the "standby >>> promote" code path. >> >> CreateRestartPoint() calls it via CheckPointGuts() while in recovery. > > May be that I am missing something. >

Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions

On 26 January 2017 at 19:34, Stas Kelvich wrote: > Imagine following scenario: > > 1. PREPARE happend > 2. PREPARE decoded and sent where it should be sent > 3. We got all responses from participating nodes and issuing COMMIT/ABORT > 4. COMMIT/ABORT decoded and sent > >

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

To re-familiarize myself with this patch, I've been re-reading the thread, which has gotten quite long. It seemed like it would be a good idea to stop and try to summarize what the patch ought to accomplish, because there's been some drift over the more than 2 years the patch has been in the

Re: [HACKERS] BUG: pg_stat_statements query normalization issues with combined queries

On 26 January 2017 at 21:42, Tom Lane wrote: > Craig Ringer writes: >> One suggestion: it's currently non-obvious that ProcessUtility_hook >> gets called with the full text of all parts of a multi-statement. > > OK, we can improve that ... > >>

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

On 2017-01-26 15:45:15 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > I *personally* don't think it's worth > > changing all this without taking more care about backward compat than > > we're apparently willing to do. I'm ok with

Re: [HACKERS] IndexBuild Function call fcinfo cannot access memory

Dear Hackers, I have solved this problem. I just want to post my answer here for people who want to write their own backend index access method. When we write a backend index access method (Let's call this method ABC), we need to implement two interfaces: ABCbuild, ABCbuildcallback. ABCbuild is

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

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > I *personally* don't think it's worth > changing all this without taking more care about backward compat than > we're apparently willing to do. I'm ok with loosing that argument. I > just don't think the previous

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ls_dir & friends still have a hard-coded superuser check

Robert, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:31 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Frankly, I get quite tired of the argument essentially being made here > > that because pg_ls_dir() wouldn't grant someone superuser rights, that > > we should

Re: [HACKERS] safer node casting

Andres Freund writes: > #if defined(USE_ASSERT_CHECKING) && defined(PG_USE_INLINE) > is probably a better gatekeeper in the back-branches, than gcc? Ah, yeah, that would work --- I'd already swapped out that business ;-) regards, tom lane -- Sent

Re: [HACKERS] safer node casting

On 2017-01-26 16:55:33 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > How about something like the attached? The first patch just contains > > castNode(), the second one a rebased version of Peter's changes (with > > some long lines broken up). > > Looks generally good.

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

On 2017-01-26 16:55:37 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2017-01-26 14:28:01 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> >> Whether the voters recognized

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

On 1/26/17 5:07 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> And I think that's all pretty reasonable. I don't consider this a >> done deal yet. I don't consider your -1 irrelevant. But I don't >> think it's fair to present this as if I am somehow running roughshod

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

* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > And I think that's all pretty reasonable. I don't consider this a > done deal yet. I don't consider your -1 irrelevant. But I don't > think it's fair to present this as if I am somehow running roughshod > over community process, either. If a large

Re: [HACKERS] safer node casting

Andres Freund writes: > How about something like the attached? The first patch just contains > castNode(), the second one a rebased version of Peter's changes (with > some long lines broken up). Looks generally good. A couple quibbles from a quick read-through: * All but

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

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-01-26 14:28:01 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> >> Whether the voters recognized that fact at the time I would have to concur >> >> that if

Re: [HACKERS] Failure in commit_ts tap tests

Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > It is really quite annoying that the buildfarm doesn't do what stock > > tests do. What about pushing a bit stronger for having these > > optimizations as part of the standard build run, instead of being only > > in the

Re: [HACKERS] Failure in commit_ts tap tests

Alvaro Herrera writes: > It is really quite annoying that the buildfarm doesn't do what stock > tests do. What about pushing a bit stronger for having these > optimizations as part of the standard build run, instead of being only > in the buildfarm client script? Huh?

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

On 27 January 2017 at 08:34, Tom Lane wrote: > David Rowley writes: >> I've attached a version without outer unique. > > I looked through this a bit, and the first thing I noticed was it doesn't > touch costsize.c at all. That seems pretty

Re: [HACKERS] safer node casting

On 2017-01-25 19:21:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2016-12-31 12:08:22 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> RestrictInfo *rinfo = castNode(RestrictInfo, lfirst(lc)); > > > Are you planning to add this / update this patch? Because I really would > >

Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless)

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello Daniel, > > A comment about control flow and variables: in branches that are not >> taken, variables are expanded nonetheless, in a way that can be surprising. >> Case in point: >> >> \set var 'ab''cd' >> --

Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless)

Hello Daniel, A comment about control flow and variables: in branches that are not taken, variables are expanded nonetheless, in a way that can be surprising. Case in point: \set var 'ab''cd' -- select :var; \if false select :var ; \else select 1; \endif To avoid that kind of trouble,

Re: [HACKERS] Failure in commit_ts tap tests

Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan writes: > > On 01/24/2017 05:17 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> Maybe we can drop that line and put it back once we get COMMENT ON > >> CURRENT_DATABASE. > > > Works for me. > > If that's enough to get the "make check" cases

Re: [HACKERS] Allow interrupts on waiting standby

Simon Riggs wrote: > On 26 January 2017 at 19:20, Andres Freund wrote: > > I'm personally fine with going with a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS > > for now, but I think it'd better to replace it with a latch. > > I have waited, so not sure what you mean. Tomorrow is too late. > >

Re: [HACKERS] simplify sequence test

On 1/25/17 5:29 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 25/01/17 03:48, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> We maintain a separate test output file sequence_1.out because the >> log_cnt value can vary if there is a checkpoint happening at the right >> time. So we have to maintain two files because of a one character

Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless)

Corey Huinker wrote: > Revised patch A comment about control flow and variables: in branches that are not taken, variables are expanded nonetheless, in a way that can be surprising. Case in point: \set var 'ab''cd' -- select :var; \if false select :var ; \else select 1; \endif

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

-Hackers, From the field. I do not care what you chose, I care that: 1. It is consistent 2. It is readable/understandable 3. It is documented 4. It is done wholesale (because of usability) That's it. So whatever meets that criteria, let's go for it. That may mean that certain commands look a

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

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-01-26 14:28:01 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Andres Freund > wrote: > > >> Whether the voters recognized that fact at the time I would have to > concur > >

Re: [HACKERS] Allow interrupts on waiting standby

* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-01-26 19:36:11 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > > Tomorrow is too late. > > Huh? We're not wrapping today/tomorrow, are we? If I missed something > and we are, then sure, it makes sense to push ahead. I haven't seen anyone suggest that we're

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > I think the way WARM works has been pretty well hammered by now, other > > than the CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY issues, so I'm looking at the code > > from a maintainability point of view

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

Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >>> Whether the voters recognized that fact at the time I would have to concur >>> that if we are going to change from xlog to wal we should be all-in. If >>> you want to vote

Re: [HACKERS] Allow interrupts on waiting standby

On 2017-01-26 19:36:11 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 26 January 2017 at 19:20, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2017-01-26 12:24:44 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > >> > Currently a waiting standby doesn't

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

On 2017-01-26 14:28:01 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> Whether the voters recognized that fact at the time I would have to concur > >> that if we are going to change from xlog to wal we should be all-in. If > >> you want

Re: [HACKERS] Allow interrupts on waiting standby

On 26 January 2017 at 19:20, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-01-26 12:24:44 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> > Currently a waiting standby doesn't allow interrupts. >> > >> > Patch implements that. >> >

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

David Rowley writes: > I've attached a version without outer unique. I looked through this a bit, and the first thing I noticed was it doesn't touch costsize.c at all. That seems pretty wrong; it's little help to have a performance improvement if the planner won't

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

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> Whether the voters recognized that fact at the time I would have to concur >> that if we are going to change from xlog to wal we should be all-in. If >> you want to vote to reject putting the whole camel in the tent I

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

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-01-26 14:05:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> I completely understand that position. I have always been doubtful of >> the value of renaming pg_xlog to pg_wal, and I'm not any more >> dedicated to the idea now than

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

On 2017-01-26 12:23:24 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2017-01-26 14:05:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > > I completely understand that position. I have always been doubtful of > > > the value of renaming

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

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-01-26 14:05:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > I completely understand that position. I have always been doubtful of > > the value of renaming pg_xlog to pg_wal, and I'm not any more > > dedicated to the idea now

Re: [HACKERS] Allow interrupts on waiting standby

On 2017-01-26 12:24:44 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > Currently a waiting standby doesn't allow interrupts. > > > > Patch implements that. > > > > Barring objection, patching today with backpatches. > > "today" is a

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

Hi, On 2017-01-25 12:26:21 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > diff --git a/src/backend/access/common/tupdesc.c > b/src/backend/access/common/tupdesc.c > index 083c0303dc..2eb3a420ac 100644 > --- a/src/backend/access/common/tupdesc.c > +++ b/src/backend/access/common/tupdesc.c > @@ -629,6 +629,14 @@

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

On 2017-01-26 14:05:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > I completely understand that position. I have always been doubtful of > the value of renaming pg_xlog to pg_wal, and I'm not any more > dedicated to the idea now than I was when I committed that patch. But > there was overwhelming support for

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

Hi, On 2017-01-23 11:35:11 +0530, Beena Emerson wrote: > Please find attached an updated WIP patch. I have incorporated almost all > comments. This is to be applied over Robert's patches. I will post > performance results later on. > > 1. shift (>>) and AND (&) operations: The assign hook of

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-01-26 13:16:13 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> > OK, I have done this refactoring effort as attached because I think >> > that's really worth it. And here are the diff numbers: >> > 3 files changed, 113

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > So I'd really prefer that the functionality > involve a parser callout, and that would certainly need "internal" > argument(s). Thanks, I see now. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Check interrupts during hot standby waits

Hi, On 2017-01-26 19:00:34 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > Check interrupts during hot standby waits > > Branch > -- > master > > Details > --- > http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/e8ee3d6b859a18d7f7375ceb9e04d256eb18aaec > > Modified Files > -- >

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

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-01-24 16:47:29 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> I'm happy to go change every last bit of it. > > I quite regret not aggressively opining against the renaming of pg_xlog > to pg_wal. I think the few users deleting

Re: [HACKERS] Cache Hash Index meta page.

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > 1. > @@ -505,26 +505,22 @@ hashbulkdelete(IndexVacuumInfo *info, > In the above flow, do we really need an updated metapage, can't we use > the cached one? We are already taking care of bucket split down in > that

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

Robert Haas writes: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Can we arrange to do that differently? I'd prefer something in which the >> argument and result types are visibly connected to the actual datatypes >> at hand, for instance >>

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On 2017-01-26 13:16:13 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > OK, I have done this refactoring effort as attached because I think > > that's really worth it. And here are the diff numbers: > > 3 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 162 deletions(-) > > That's a bit less than what I thought first because of

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

* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-01-24 16:47:29 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > I'm happy to go change every last bit of it. > > I quite regret not aggressively opining against the renaming of pg_xlog > to pg_wal. I think the few users deleting their data don't weigh against >

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: No, because the output of SHOW is always

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

Robert Haas writes: > Yeah, I thought about that, too, but it doesn't really seem worth it. > If we had pg_receive_wal and pg_receive_logical, they'd be nicely > consistent with each other, but inconsistent with practically every > other utility we have: pg_basebackup,

Re: [HACKERS] Superowners

On 26 January 2017 at 17:37, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/24/17 8:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> What about just saying that the database owner has those privileges? >> After all, the ultimate privilege of an owner is to drop the object >> (and then remake it as she

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Can we arrange to do that differently? I'd prefer something in which the > argument and result types are visibly connected to the actual datatypes > at hand, for instance > array_subscript(anyarray, internal)

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

On 2017-01-24 16:47:29 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > I'm happy to go change every last bit of it. I quite regret not aggressively opining against the renaming of pg_xlog to pg_wal. I think the few users deleting their data don't weigh against renaming a bunch of tools and function for some sense of

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

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 1/9/17 1:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Peter Eisentraut > > wrote: > >> On 1/3/17 11:52 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > >>> We will need

Re: [HACKERS] Superowners

On Thursday, January 26, 2017, Michael Banck wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:37:44PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 1/24/17 8:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > What about just saying that the database owner has those privileges? > > > After all, the ultimate

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

Stephen Frost writes: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> What I think might be worth considering is inserting underscores, >> eg "pg_receive_wal", anywhere that we are running the abbreviation >> directly against another word. We won't get another chance. > Wouldn't

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

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: >>> There have been complaints that pg_receivexlog's name is not consistent >>> with

Re: [HACKERS] Superowners

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:37:44PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/24/17 8:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > What about just saying that the database owner has those privileges? > > After all, the ultimate privilege of an owner is to drop the object > > (and then remake it as she pleases), and the

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

* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera > > wrote: > >> There have been complaints that pg_receivexlog's name is not consistent > >> with pg_recvlogical, and I seem to

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

Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> There have been complaints that pg_receivexlog's name is not consistent >> with pg_recvlogical, and I seem to recall there were some votes for >> renaming

Re: [HACKERS] Superowners

On 1/24/17 8:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > What about just saying that the database owner has those privileges? > After all, the ultimate privilege of an owner is to drop the object > (and then remake it as she pleases), and the DB owner has that option > w.r.t. the whole database. So I'm not sure we

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

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > >> 0002 renames programs whose names contains "xlog". > > There have been complaints that pg_receivexlog's name is not consistent > with pg_recvlogical, and I seem to recall there were some

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

Robert Haas wrote: > 0002 renames programs whose names contains "xlog". There have been complaints that pg_receivexlog's name is not consistent with pg_recvlogical, and I seem to recall there were some votes for renaming pg_receivexlog to match. We could make it "pg_recvwal" now. -- Álvaro

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I think the way WARM works has been pretty well hammered by now, other > than the CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY issues, so I'm looking at the code > from a maintainability point of view only. Which senior hackers have

Re: [HACKERS] Allow interrupts on waiting standby

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > Currently a waiting standby doesn't allow interrupts. > > Patch implements that. > > Barring objection, patching today with backpatches. "today" is a little quick, but the patch looks fine. I doubt anyone's going to

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Reindent table partitioning code.

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/24/17 10:51 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Robert Haas writes: Reindent table partitioning code. >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I wonder if heap_hot_search_buffer() and heap_hot_search() should return > a tri-valued enum instead of boolean; that idea looks reasonable in > theory but callers have to do more work afterwards, so maybe not. > > I think heap_hot_search() sometimes leaving the buffer

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Reindent table partitioning code.

On 1/24/17 10:51 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas writes: >>> Reindent table partitioning code. >> >> Oh, thank you, I was starting to get annoyed with that too. > > Glad you like. The pgindent

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.

On 1/24/17 3:26 AM, Mithun Cy wrote: > In my code by default, we only dump at shutdown time. If we want to > dump at regular interval then we need to set the GUC > pg_autoprewarm.buff_dump_interval to > 0. Just a thought with an additional use case: If I want to set up a standby for offloading

Re: [HACKERS] CONNECTION LIMIT and Parallel Query don't play well together

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 7:59 AM, David Rowley wrote: > On 12 January 2017 at 15:24, David Rowley > wrote: >> I've attached a patch which intended to assist discussions on this topic. >> >> The patch adds some notes to the docs to

  1   2   >