Re: [HACKERS] Adding the optional clause 'AS' in CREATE TRIGGER
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 4:31 PM Okano Naoki wrote: > > But in any case it would be a serious mistake to do this without first > > implementing CREATE OR REPLACE TRIGGER. I think that's an entirely > > separate > > proposal and you would be well advised to treat it as such. > I see.
Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Beena Emersonwrote: > launched by other applications. Also with max_worker_processes = 2 and > restart, the system crashes when the 2nd worker is not launched: > 2017-02-07 11:36:39.132 IST [20573] LOG: auto pg_prewarm load : number of
[HACKERS] Backport of pg_statistics typos fix
Hi, I found typos "pg_statistics" in REL9_6_STABLE, but that has been fixed in the master branch. Fix typo: pg_statistics -> pg_statistic https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=5a366b4ff4ceceb9793fcc13c3f097ee0d32c56d;hp=f7c62462402972b13d10e43f104ca0c0fecb6d08 I
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Release note updates.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Alvaro Herrerawrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Release note updates. > > > > Add item for last-minute CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY fix. > > Hi, > > Sorry for not noticing earlier, but there is a bug in the notes: > > + If CREATE INDEX
Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.
Thanks Beena, On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Beena Emersonwrote: > Few more comments: > > = Background worker messages: > > - Workers when launched, show messages like: "logical replication launcher > started”, "autovacuum launcher started”. We should probably have a
Re: [HACKERS] 0/NULL/NIL assignments in build_*_rel()
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:04 AM, Tom Lanewrote: > Ashutosh Bapat writes: >> Both build_simple_rel() and build_join_rel() allocate RelOptInfo using >> makeNode(), which returned a zeroed out memory. The functions then >> assign values like
Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.
Hello, On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Mithun Cywrote: > Thanks Beena, > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Beena Emerson > wrote: > > Few more comments: > > > > = Background worker messages: > > > > - Workers when launched, show messages
Re: [HACKERS] WAL consistency check facility
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Amit Kapilawrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> +if (!HeapTupleHeaderXminFrozen(page_htup)) >> +page_htup->t_infomask |= HEAP_XACT_MASK; >> +else
Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Amit Kapilawrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Beena Emerson > wrote: >> Are 2 workers required? >> > > I think in the new design there is a provision of launching the worker > dynamically to dump the
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Release note updates.
Tom Lane wrote: > Release note updates. > > Add item for last-minute CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY fix. Hi, Sorry for not noticing earlier, but there is a bug in the notes: + If CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY was used to build an index + that depends on a column not previously indexed, then
Re: [HACKERS] LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines
Am Montag, den 06.02.2017, 22:44 +0300 schrieb Alexander Korotkov: > 2. Also could you run each test longer: 3-5 mins, and run them > with > > variety of clients count? So here are some other results. I've changed max_connections to 300. The bench was prewarmed and run 300s each. I could
Re: [HACKERS] WAL consistency check facility
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Robert Haaswrote: > > +if (!HeapTupleHeaderXminFrozen(page_htup)) > +page_htup->t_infomask |= HEAP_XACT_MASK; > +else > +page_htup->t_infomask |= HEAP_XMAX_COMMITTED | >
Re: [HACKERS] Postgres_fdw behaves oddly
Hi, On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 18:12:01 +0900 vinayakwrote: > Hello, > > I have tested some scenarios of inserting data into two foreign tables > using postgres_fdw. All the test cases works fine except Test 5. > > In Test 5, I am expecting error as both the rows
Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Mithun Cywrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Beena Emerson > wrote: > > launched by other applications. Also with max_worker_processes = 2 and > > restart, the system crashes when the 2nd worker is not
Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore is broken on 9.2 version.
Greetings, * Rushabh Lathia (rushabh.lat...@gmail.com) wrote: > Commit c59a1a89035674c6efacc596d652528cebba37ec don't allow non-positive > number > of jobs. Now on 9.2 number of jobs get assigned to opts->number_of_jobs. If > user don't specify any value -j then default value will be always 0.
Re: [HACKERS] 'text' instead of 'unknown' in Postgres 10
On 02/07/2017 03:14 PM, Daniele Varrazzo wrote: In psycopg '{}'::unknown is treated specially as an empty array and converted into an empty list, which allows empty lists to be passed to the server as arrays and returned back to python. Without the special case, empty lists behave differently
Re: [HACKERS] 'text' instead of 'unknown' in Postgres 10
Daniele Varrazzowrites: > testing with psycopg2 against Postgres 10 I've found a difference in > behaviour regarding literals, which are returned as text instead of > unknown. ... > Is this behaviour here to stay? Is there documentation for this change? Yup, see
[HACKERS] DROP SUBSCRIPTION and ROLLBACK
Hi all, While testing logical replciation I found that if the transaction issued DROP SUBSCRIPTION rollbacks then the logical repliation stops and the subscription can never be removed later. The document says that the replication worker associated with the subscription will not stop until after
Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.
Hello, On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Mithun Cywrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Amit Kapila > wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Beena Emerson > wrote: > >> Are 2 workers required? > >> > > > > I
Re: [HACKERS] pageinspect: Hash index support
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Ashutosh Sharmawrote: >> As far as I can tell, the hash_bitmap_info() function is doing >> something completely ridiculous. One would expect that the purpose of >> this function was to tell you about the status of pages in the bitmap. >>
Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017 - LAST CALL
Amit, * Amit Kapila (amit.kapil...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Stephen Frostwrote: > > If you have any ideas for projects, please go to: > > > > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/GSoC_2017 > > There are few entries which seem to be redundant: > > >
[HACKERS] 'text' instead of 'unknown' in Postgres 10
Hello, testing with psycopg2 against Postgres 10 I've found a difference in behaviour regarding literals, which are returned as text instead of unknown. In previous versions: In [2]: cnn = psycopg2.connect('') In [3]: cur = cnn.cursor() In [7]: cur.execute("select 'x'") In [9]:
Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017
Ruben, * Ruben Buchatskiy (ru...@ispras.ru) wrote: > Difficulty Level > Moderate-level; however, microoptimizations might be hard. > Probably it will also be hard to keep the whole architecture as clean as it is > now. The above difficulty level looks fine, but doesn't match what's on the wiki.
[HACKERS] [PATCH] configure-time knob to set default ssl ciphers
Hi hackers, in Fedora, there's crypto initiative where people try to consolidate ssl cipher settings for (majority of) Fedora services (PostgreSQL is included). PostgreSQL server uses 'HIGH:MEDIUM:+3DES:!aNULL' cipher set by default, but what Fedora would like to have is 'PROFILE=SYSTEM' (works
Re: [HACKERS] Cannot shutdown subscriber after DROP SUBSCRIPTION
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Petr Jelinekwrote: > On 06/02/17 17:33, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Petr Jelinek >> wrote: >>> On 03/02/17 19:38, Fujii Masao wrote: On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Fujii
Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote: > * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: > > On 2017/02/06 20:51, Ruben Buchatskiy wrote: > > > Also we have seen in the mailing list that Kumar Rajeev had been > > > investigating this idea too, and he reported that the results were > > >
Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017 - LAST CALL
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Stephen Frostwrote: > All, > > This is the LAST CALL for applications to GSoC 2017 for PostgreSQL. > > If you have any ideas for projects, please go to: > > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/GSoC_2017 > There are few entries which seem to be
Re: [HACKERS] 'text' instead of 'unknown' in Postgres 10
Hi 2017-02-07 15:14 GMT+01:00 Daniele Varrazzo: > Hello, > > testing with psycopg2 against Postgres 10 I've found a difference in > behaviour regarding literals, which are returned as text instead of > unknown. In previous versions: > > In [2]: cnn =
Re: [HACKERS] DROP SUBSCRIPTION and ROLLBACK
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Masahiko Sawadawrote: > Hi all, > > While testing logical replciation I found that if the transaction > issued DROP SUBSCRIPTION rollbacks then the logical repliation stops > and the subscription can never be removed later. The document says
Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017
Greetings, * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: > On 2017/02/06 20:51, Ruben Buchatskiy wrote: > > Also we have seen in the mailing list that Kumar Rajeev had been > > investigating this idea too, and he reported that the results were > > impressive (unfortunately, without
[HACKERS] GSoC 2017 - LAST CALL
All, This is the LAST CALL for applications to GSoC 2017 for PostgreSQL. If you have any ideas for projects, please go to: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/GSoC_2017 and add them, using the format listed there. I will be submitting our application to Google tomorrow morning (the deadline is
Re: [HACKERS] LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Bernd Helmlewrote: > Am Montag, den 06.02.2017, 22:44 +0300 schrieb Alexander Korotkov: > >2. Also could you run each test longer: 3-5 mins, and run them with >variety of clients count? > > > So here are some other results. I've
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Release note updates.
Alvaro Herrerawrites: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Release note updates. > Sorry for not noticing earlier, but there is a bug in the notes: Mmm, right. > May I suggest > + If CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY was used to build an index > + that depends on a column not
[HACKERS] pg_restore is broken on 9.2 version.
Hi All, Commit c59a1a89035674c6efacc596d652528cebba37ec don't allow non-positive number of jobs. Now on 9.2 number of jobs get assigned to opts->number_of_jobs. If user don't specify any value -j then default value will be always 0. Which will lead to the "invalid number of parallel jobs" error.
Re: [HACKERS] Press Release Draft - 2016-02-09 Cumulative Update
Hi, Am Dienstag, den 07.02.2017, 10:37 -0500 schrieb Jonathan S. Katz: > Below is the draft of the press release for the update this Thursday: About the CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY issue, I wonder whether Peter's amcheck extension[1] would catch that (for B-Tree indexes at least), and if that is
Re: [HACKERS] DROP SUBSCRIPTION and ROLLBACK
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:26 AM, Petr Jelinekwrote: > On 07/02/17 13:10, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> While testing logical replciation I found that if the transaction >> issued DROP SUBSCRIPTION rollbacks then the logical repliation stops >> and the
Re: [HACKERS] Idea on how to simplify comparing two sets
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Tom Lanewrote: > Joel Jacobson writes: >> Currently there is no simple way to check if two sets are equal. > > Uh ... maybe check whether SELECT set1 EXCEPT SELECT set2 > and SELECT set2 EXCEPT SELECT set1 are both empty?
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] configure-time knob to set default ssl ciphers
Pavel Raiskupwrites: > PostgreSQL server uses 'HIGH:MEDIUM:+3DES:!aNULL' cipher set by default, > but what Fedora would like to have is 'PROFILE=SYSTEM' (works with > Fedora-patched OpenSSL, so please don't waste your time with checking this > elsewhere). > ... > I'd like to
Re: [HACKERS] Press Release Draft - 2016-02-09 Cumulative Update
> As there are a lot of updates I did my best to consolidate some of the > bullet points and as usual, people are directed to the release notes. > Please let me know if there are any inaccuracies so I can fix them ASAP. Just some minor points: > * Several fixes for PostgreSQL operating in hot
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Release note updates.
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Alvaro Herrerawrites: > > > > May I suggest > > > > > + If CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY was used to build an index > > > + that depends on a column not previously indexed, then rows > > > + updated by
[HACKERS] Idea on how to simplify comparing two sets
Hi hackers, Currently there is no simple way to check if two sets are equal. Looks like no RDBMS in the world has a simple command for it. You have to do something like: WITH T1 AS (SELECT * FROM Foo WHERE FooID BETWEEN 1 AND 1), T2 AS (SELECT * FROM Bar WHERE BarID BETWEEN 1 AND 1)
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Release note updates.
Alvaro Herrerawrites: > Tom Lane wrote: >> (I fear this is too late for the current set of releases; I don't want >> to make the packagers redo their work just for this. But we can correct >> it for future wraps.) > I think a large fraction of the readers will grab
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Release note updates.
Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrerawrites: > > May I suggest > > > + If CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY was used to build an index > > + that depends on a column not previously indexed, then rows > > + updated by transactions that ran concurrently with > > +
Re: [HACKERS] 'text' instead of 'unknown' in Postgres 10
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Tom Lanewrote: > Daniele Varrazzo writes: >> testing with psycopg2 against Postgres 10 I've found a difference in >> behaviour regarding literals, which are returned as text instead of >> unknown. ... >> Is this
Re: [HACKERS] 'text' instead of 'unknown' in Postgres 10
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Andreas Karlssonwrote: > On 02/07/2017 03:14 PM, Daniele Varrazzo wrote: >> >> In psycopg '{}'::unknown is treated specially as an empty array and >> converted into an empty list, which allows empty lists to be passed to >> the server as arrays
Re: [HACKERS] DROP SUBSCRIPTION and ROLLBACK
On 07/02/17 16:26, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 07/02/17 13:10, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> I think the logical replication should not stop and the corresponding >> replication slot and replication origin should not be removed until >> the transaction commits. >> >> The solution for this I came up with
[HACKERS] Press Release Draft - 2016-02-09 Cumulative Update
Hi! Below is the draft of the press release for the update this Thursday: https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=update_releases/current/20170209updaterelease.md;h=0cccb8986c08527f65f13d704a78c36bb8de7fef;hb=afc01091dea8a1597e8e21430edc3908c581ce0c
Re: [HACKERS] Idea on how to simplify comparing two sets
But that's already a valid statement, so there is no ambiguity: SELECT TRUE WHERE FALSE IS NOT DISTINCT FROM (SELECT TRUE); bool -- (0 rows) If you want to compare the set (SELECT TRUE WHERE FALSE) with the set (SELECT TRUE) then just add parenthesis: (SELECT TRUE WHERE FALSE) IS NOT
[HACKERS] possibility to specify template database for pg_regress
Hi Is possible to specify template database for pg_regress? I have to run tests on database with thousands database objects. Using template is much faster than import these objects. Regards Pavel
Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore is broken on 9.2 version.
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote: > Greetings, > > * Rushabh Lathia (rushabh.lat...@gmail.com) wrote: > > Commit c59a1a89035674c6efacc596d652528cebba37ec don't allow non-positive > > number > > of jobs. Now on 9.2 number of jobs get assigned to opts->number_of_jobs. If > > user don't
Re: [HACKERS] DROP SUBSCRIPTION and ROLLBACK
On 07/02/17 13:10, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Hi all, > > While testing logical replciation I found that if the transaction > issued DROP SUBSCRIPTION rollbacks then the logical repliation stops > and the subscription can never be removed later. The document says > that the replication worker
Re: [HACKERS] Idea on how to simplify comparing two sets
What about this ambiguity? SELECT TRUE WHERE FALSE IS NOT DISTINCT FROM (SELECT TRUE) On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Joel Jacobsonwrote: > Hi hackers, > > Currently there is no simple way to check if two sets are equal. > > Looks like no RDBMS in the world has a simple
Re: [HACKERS] Idea on how to simplify comparing two sets
Joel Jacobsonwrites: > Currently there is no simple way to check if two sets are equal. Uh ... maybe check whether SELECT set1 EXCEPT SELECT set2 and SELECT set2 EXCEPT SELECT set1 are both empty? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing
Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Beena Emersonwrote: > Yes it would be better to have only one pg_prewarm worker as the loader is > idle for the entire server run time after the initial load activity of few > secs. Sorry, that is again a bug in the code. The code to
Re: [HACKERS] Idea on how to simplify comparing two sets
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 09:10:17AM -0800, David Fetter wrote: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 04:13:40PM +0100, Joel Jacobson wrote: > > Hi hackers, > > > > Currently there is no simple way to check if two sets are equal. > > Assuming that a and b each has at least one NOT NULL column, is this >
Re: [HACKERS] Press Release Draft - 2016-02-09 Cumulative Update
Michael Banck wrote: > Hi, > > Am Dienstag, den 07.02.2017, 10:37 -0500 schrieb Jonathan S. Katz: > > > Below is the draft of the press release for the update this Thursday: > > About the CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY issue, I wonder whether Peter's > amcheck extension[1] would catch that (for
Re: [HACKERS] Press Release Draft - 2016-02-09 Cumulative Update
Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > Below is the draft of the press release for the update this Thursday: > > https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=update_releases/current/20170209updaterelease.md;h=0cccb8986c08527f65f13d704a78c36bb8de7fef;hb=afc01091dea8a1597e8e21430edc3908c581ce0c >
Re: [HACKERS] Idea on how to simplify comparing two sets
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Tom Lanewrote: > Joel Jacobson writes: > > Currently there is no simple way to check if two sets are equal. > > Uh ... maybe check whether SELECT set1 EXCEPT SELECT set2 > and SELECT set2 EXCEPT SELECT set1 are both empty? >
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] SortSupport for macaddr type
And as a short follow up, I've moved the patch to the current commit fest: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/13/743/ On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Brandur Leachwrote: > Hi Julien, > > Thank you for taking the time to do this review, and my > apologies for the very
Re: [HACKERS] Idea on how to simplify comparing two sets
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 04:13:40PM +0100, Joel Jacobson wrote: > Hi hackers, > > Currently there is no simple way to check if two sets are equal. Assuming that a and b each has at least one NOT NULL column, is this simple enough? Based on nothing much, I'm assuming here that the IS NOT NULL
Re: [HACKERS] Idea on how to simplify comparing two sets
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 6:28 PM, David Fetterwrote: > This could be shortened further to the following if we ever implement > DISTINCT for window functions, which might involve implementing > DISTINCT via hashing more generally, which means hashable > types...whee! > > SELECT
Re: [HACKERS] Cache Hash Index meta page.
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Michael Paquierwrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Mithun Cy wrote: >>> HashMetaPage _hash_getcachedmetap(Relation rel, Buffer *metabuf, bool >>> force_refresh); >>> >>> If the cache is initialized and
Re: [HACKERS] Idea on how to simplify comparing two sets
Currently there is no simple way to check if two sets are equal. My 0.02€: Assuming that you mean set = relation, and that there is a key (which should be the case for a set otherwise tuples cannot be distinguished, so this is not really a set), and assuming not null other data, then:
Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless)
> > > It seems that ON_ERROR_STOP is mostly ignored by design when in > interactive mode, probably because it is nicer not to disconnect the user > who is actually typing things on a terminal. > > """ > ON_ERROR_STOP > > By default, command processing continues after an error. When this >
Re: [HACKERS] Cache Hash Index meta page.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Erik Rijkerswrote: > On 2017-02-07 18:41, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> Committed with some changes (which I noted in the commit message). Thanks, Robert and all who have reviewed the patch and given their valuable comments. > This has caused a
Re: [HACKERS] Parallel bitmap heap scan
On 2017-02-07 13:13:43 -0800, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Robert Haaswrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > > >> I think maybe we should rename the functions to element_allocate, > > >>
Re: [HACKERS] Parallel bitmap heap scan
On 2017-02-07 16:36:55 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Andres Freundwrote: > > FWIW, I think it'd have been better to not add the new callbacks as > > parameters to *_create(), but rather have them be "templatized" like the > > rest of simplehash.
Re: [HACKERS] Parallel bitmap heap scan
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Robert Haaswrote: > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > >> I think maybe we should rename the functions to element_allocate, > >> element_free, and element_allocator_ctx, or something like that. The
Re: [HACKERS] Parallel bitmap heap scan
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Dilip Kumarwrote: >> I think maybe we should rename the functions to element_allocate, >> element_free, and element_allocator_ctx, or something like that. The >> current names aren't capitalized consistently with other things in >> this
Re: [HACKERS] Press Release Draft - 2016-02-09 Cumulative Update
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 11:25 AM, Emre Hasegeliwrote: > >> As there are a lot of updates I did my best to consolidate some of the >> bullet points and as usual, people are directed to the release notes. >> Please let me know if there are any inaccuracies so I can fix them ASAP.
Re: [HACKERS] Parallel bitmap heap scan
On 2017-02-07 16:03:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Dilip Kumarwrote: > >> I think maybe we should rename the functions to element_allocate, > >> element_free, and element_allocator_ctx, or something like that. The > >> current names aren't
Re: [HACKERS] Press Release Draft - 2016-02-09 Cumulative Update
Hi, Am Dienstag, den 07.02.2017, 15:58 -0500 schrieb Jonathan S. Katz: > https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=press.git;a=blob;f=update_releases/current/20170209updaterelease.txt;h=f90d4716f240dbea4cca647b099f79865545b633;hb=d85498c284275bcab4752b91476834de780648b8 It says "[...]then rows that
Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless)
This was my previous understanding of ON_ERROR_STOP. Somewhere in the course of developing this patch I lost that. Glad to have it back. The only changes I made were to invalid booleans on if/elif, and the final branch balancing check won't set status to EXIT_USER unless it's non-interactive
Re: [HACKERS] Parallel bitmap heap scan
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Jeff Janeswrote: > I'm getting compiler errors: > > In file included from execGrouping.c:47: > ../../../src/include/lib/simplehash.h:91: error: redefinition of typedef > 'simplehash_allocate' > ../../../src/include/lib/simplehash.h:91: note:
Re: [HACKERS] Parallel bitmap heap scan
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Andres Freundwrote: > FWIW, I think it'd have been better to not add the new callbacks as > parameters to *_create(), but rather have them be "templatized" like the > rest of simplehash. That'd require that callback to check the context, > to
Re: [HACKERS] Cache Hash Index meta page.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Mithun Cywrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote: >> On 2017-02-07 18:41, Robert Haas wrote: >>> >>> Committed with some changes (which I noted in the commit message). > > Thanks, Robert and all who
[HACKERS] PUBLICATIONS and pg_dump
Peter, * Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote: > Logical replication > > - Add PUBLICATION catalogs and DDL > - Add SUBSCRIPTION catalog and DDL > - Define logical replication protocol and output plugin > - Add logical replication workers I think we need to have a bit more discussion
Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017 - LAST CALL
Hi! On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Stephen Frostwrote: > I will be submitting our application to Google tomorrow morning (the > deadline is Feb 9th, 1600 UTC, but I'd like to do it a bit early to > have time to address any issues). Please get your project ideas >
Re: [HACKERS] Press Release Draft - 2016-02-09 Cumulative Update
Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > Thanks for the clarification. I have updated the recipe along with Emre’s > comments here: > > [updated text not included in the email] I still don't think the recipe is a very good one because it leaves you with a window where the affected columns are not indexed at
Re: [HACKERS] Parallel bitmap heap scan
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Andres Freundwrote: > On 2017-02-07 16:36:55 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> > FWIW, I think it'd have been better to not add the new callbacks as >> > parameters to
Re: [HACKERS] possibility to specify template database for pg_regress
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Tom Lanewrote: > I ran into a use-case just today: I wanted to run one particular > regression test script under CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS, but it needed > stuff created by earlier scripts, and I didn't especially want to > run all of those scripts
Re: [HACKERS] possibility to specify template database for pg_regress
On 2017-02-07 19:23:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquierwrites: > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Pavel Stehule > > wrote: > >> Is possible to specify template database for pg_regress? > >> I have to run tests on database with
Re: [HACKERS] Press Release Draft - 2016-02-09 Cumulative Update
Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > > > On Feb 7, 2017, at 4:07 PM, Alvaro Herrerawrote: > > > > Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > > > >> Thanks for the clarification. I have updated the recipe along with Emre’s > >> comments here: > >> > >> [updated text not included in the email]
[HACKERS] Caching index AM working data across aminsert calls
It's always been possible for index AMs to cache data across successive amgettuple calls within a single SQL command: the IndexScanDesc.opaque field is meant for precisely that. However, no comparable facility exists for amortizing setup work across successive aminsert calls. The attached
Re: [HACKERS] Caching index AM working data across aminsert calls
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Tom Lanewrote: > It's always been possible for index AMs to cache data across successive > amgettuple calls within a single SQL command: the IndexScanDesc.opaque > field is meant for precisely that. However, no comparable facility > exists for
Re: [HACKERS] possibility to specify template database for pg_regress
Michael Paquierwrites: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: >> Is possible to specify template database for pg_regress? >> I have to run tests on database with thousands database objects. Using >> template is much faster
Re: [HACKERS] Press Release Draft - 2016-02-09 Cumulative Update
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 4:39 PM, Michael Banckwrote: > > Hi, > > Am Dienstag, den 07.02.2017, 15:58 -0500 schrieb Jonathan S. Katz: > > >>
Re: [HACKERS] Press Release Draft - 2016-02-09 Cumulative Update
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 4:07 PM, Alvaro Herrerawrote: > > Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > >> Thanks for the clarification. I have updated the recipe along with Emre’s >> comments here: >> >> [updated text not included in the email] > > I still don't think the recipe is a
Re: [HACKERS] DROP SUBSCRIPTION and ROLLBACK
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Fujii Masaowrote: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:26 AM, Petr Jelinek > wrote: >> For example what happens if apply crashes during the DROP >> SUBSCRIPTION/COMMIT and is not started because the delete from catalog
Re: [HACKERS] possibility to specify template database for pg_regress
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Pavel Stehulewrote: > Is possible to specify template database for pg_regress? > I have to run tests on database with thousands database objects. Using > template is much faster than import these objects. Not directly, all the databases
Re: [HACKERS] Press Release Draft - 2016-02-09 Cumulative Update
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 12:44 PM, Alvaro Herrerawrote: > > Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > >> Below is the draft of the press release for the update this Thursday: >> >>
Re: [HACKERS] possibility to specify template database for pg_regress
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Pavel Stehulewrote: > What is sense for list of databases? ECPG uses it for example, see 0992259. > Some option --template can be great - with backpatch if it is possible. That's not really complicated to patch... That could be a nice
Re: [HACKERS] possibility to specify template database for pg_regress
2017-02-08 8:30 GMT+01:00 Michael Paquier: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > What is sense for list of databases? > > ECPG uses it for example, see 0992259. > > > Some option --template can be great - with backpatch
Re: [HACKERS] possibility to specify template database for pg_regress
2017-02-08 1:30 GMT+01:00 Michael Paquier: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I ran into a use-case just today: I wanted to run one particular > > regression test script under CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS, but it needed > > stuff created
Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Peter Geogheganwrote: > However, there are some specific implementation issues with this that > I didn't quite anticipate. I would like to get feedback on these > issues now, from both Thomas and Robert. The issues relate to how much > the patch can
Re: [HACKERS] pg_bsd_indent: implement -lps ("leave preprocessor space")
Piotr Stefaniakwrites: > this is a patch that Andres asked me for. It makes pg_bsd_indent leave > preprocessor space alone, as in this example: > #if 0 > # if 0 > # if 0 > # error > # endif > # endif > #else > # line 7 > #endif Um ... but the point
Re: [HACKERS] drop support for Python 2.3
Peter Eisentrautwrites: > I would like to propose that we drop support for Python 2.3. > ... > We do have buildfarm coverage on prairiedog. However, that runs a >10 > year old operating system, so I think it is not representing real usage. I have no particular
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] configure-time knob to set default ssl ciphers
Peter Eisentrautwrites: > On 2/7/17 11:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> A compromise that might be worth considering is to introduce >> #define PG_DEFAULT_SSL_CIPHERS "HIGH:MEDIUM:+3DES:!aNULL" >> into pg_config_manual.h, which would at least give you a reasonably >>
[HACKERS] drop support for Python 2.3
I would like to propose that we drop support for Python 2.3. Reasons: - Python 3.6 was released in December. The list of versions we need to manage is growing. - Older Python versions are increasingly hard to build locally for testing. - It's unlikely that Python 2.3 is still used in
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] configure-time knob to set default ssl ciphers
On 2/7/17 11:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > A compromise that might be worth considering is to introduce > > #define PG_DEFAULT_SSL_CIPHERS "HIGH:MEDIUM:+3DES:!aNULL" > > into pg_config_manual.h, which would at least give you a reasonably > stable target point for a long-lived patch. You'd still need