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

Simon Riggs writes: > [ good general plan ] > 3. Make a list of all functions that would cause security problems. > One by one, precisely. If we did remove all superuser checks we would > need this list documented to advise people of the risks, so it must > exist before

Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017

Greg Stark writes: > On 24 January 2017 at 03:42, Peter van Hardenberg wrote: >> The basic concept is that the value of a currency type is that it would >> allow you to operate in multiple currencies without accidentally adding >> them. You'd flatten them to a single

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

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 26 January 2017 at 22:36, Stephen Frost wrote: > >>> Currently, I count three votes in favor of this approach and one >>> opposed. If anyone else wants to weigh in, please do. It would be >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Speedup twophase transactions

>>> The xact_redo code will add prepared transactions to the >>> KnownPreparedList in memory. Earlier it used to create the on-disk 2PC >>> file. >>> >>> At standby promote, the surviving (yet uncommitted) prepared >>> transactions from KnownPreparedList need to be persisted, right? >> >> I don't

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

On 26 January 2017 at 22:36, Stephen Frost wrote: >> Currently, I count three votes in favor of this approach and one >> opposed. If anyone else wants to weigh in, please do. It would be >> helpful if anyone weighing in can be clear about whether (a) they are >> in favor of

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

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Perhaps unsuprisingly, but you've still not convinced me, so I don't > agree with this change. > >> Currently, I count three votes in favor of this approach and one >> opposed. If anyone else wants to weigh in, please

Re: [HACKERS] Failure in commit_ts tap tests

Alvaro Herrera writes: > There is a lot that you *can* do using the stock makefiles, but that > "make check-world" doesn't do. Why aren't we using USE_MODULE_DB=1 in > "make check-world", is my question. Well, that option isn't all that convenient for manual use ...

Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017

On 24 January 2017 at 03:42, Peter van Hardenberg wrote: > The basic concept is that the value of a currency type is that it would > allow you to operate in multiple currencies without accidentally adding > them. You'd flatten them to a single type if when and how you wanted for any

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

Stephen Frost wrote: > I agree that it'd be nice if others would weigh in on this. I support your position. -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Allow interrupts on waiting standby

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 27 January 2017 at 01:35, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> On 26 January 2017 at 19:20, Andres Freund

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

On 2017/01/27 20:04, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: A more clean way I'm thinking is: (1) in postgresGetForeignJoinPaths(), create a tlist by build_tlist_to_deparse() and save it in fpinfo->tlist before

[HACKERS] Query fails when SRFs are part of FROM clause (Commit id: 69f4b9c85f)

Consider the below test; CREATE TABLE tab ( a int primary key); SELECT * FROM pg_constraint pc, CAST(CASE WHEN pc.contype IN ('f','u','p') THEN generate_series(1, array_upper(pc.conkey, 1)) ELSE NULL END AS int) AS position; Above query is failing with "set-valued function called in context

Re: [HACKERS] Speedup twophase transactions

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 27 January 2017 at 11:01, Nikhil Sontakke wrote: >> The xact_redo code will add prepared transactions to the >> KnownPreparedList in memory. Earlier it used to create the on-disk 2PC >> file.

Re: [HACKERS] Allow interrupts on waiting standby

On 27 January 2017 at 01:35, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 26 January 2017 at 19:20, Andres Freund wrote: >>> I'm personally fine with going with a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS

Re: [HACKERS] Failure in commit_ts tap tests

Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 01/26/2017 03:50 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > 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] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan

On 25 January 2017 at 20:06, Jim Nasby wrote: > GUCs support SET LOCAL, but that's not the same as local scoping because the > setting stays in effect unless the substrans aborts. What I'd like is the > ability to set a GUC in a plpgsql block *and have the setting revert

Re: [HACKERS] Microvacuum support for Hash Index

>>> 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". >> > > Don't you think we should try to identify the reason of the deadlock > error reported by you up thread [1]? I know that you

Re: [HACKERS] Allow interrupts on waiting standby

On 26 January 2017 at 20:36, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > 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

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

On 27 Jan. 2017 14:34, "Tom Lane" wrote: 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

Re: [HACKERS] Speedup twophase transactions

On 27 January 2017 at 11:01, Nikhil Sontakke wrote: > On 27 January 2017 at 15:37, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 27 January 2017 at 09:59, Nikhil Sontakke wrote: > But, I put the recovery process and the checkpointer

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

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > On 2017/01/12 18:25, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Etsuro Fujita >> wrote: > > > On 2017/01/05 21:11, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> >> IIUC,

Re: [HACKERS] Speedup twophase transactions

On 27 January 2017 at 15:37, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 27 January 2017 at 09:59, Nikhil Sontakke wrote: But, I put the recovery process and the checkpointer process of the standby under gdb with breakpoints on these functions, but both did

Re: [HACKERS] Speedup twophase transactions

On 27 January 2017 at 09:59, Nikhil Sontakke wrote: >>> But, I put the recovery process and the checkpointer process of the >>> standby under gdb with breakpoints on these functions, but both did >>> not hit CreateRestartPoint() as well as CheckPointGuts() when I issued

Re: [HACKERS] Speedup twophase transactions

>> But, I put the recovery process and the checkpointer process of the >> standby under gdb with breakpoints on these functions, but both did >> not hit CreateRestartPoint() as well as CheckPointGuts() when I issued >> a promote :-| > > No end-of-recovery checkpoints happen at promotion since 9.3.

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

Hello Andres, Thank you for your review. On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > 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

Re: [HACKERS] Failure in commit_ts tap tests

On 01/26/2017 03:50 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > 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

Re: [HACKERS] Radix tree for character conversion

Hi, this is an intermediate report without a patch. At Thu, 26 Jan 2017 21:42:12 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote in <20170126.214212.111556326.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > > >

Re: [HACKERS] patch proposal

Hi David, On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 9:22 AM, David Steele wrote: > Hi Venkata, > > On 11/8/16 5:47 PM, Venkata B Nagothi wrote: > > Attached is the 2nd version of the patch with some enhancements. > > Here's my review of the patch. > Thank you very much for reviewing the

<    1   2