Re: [HACKERS] WAL Consistency checking for hash indexes

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Ashutosh Sharma >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Attached is the patch that allows

Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> On 03/14/2017 11:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> >>> In short, I don't think that argument refutes my position that "md5" >>> in

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:08:14 -0400 David Steele wrote: > Please post an explanation for the delay and a schedule for the new > patch. If no patch or explanation is posted by 2017-03-17 AoE I will > mark this submission "Returned with Feedback". I am sorry for my late

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Beena Emerson wrote: > The option was intended to only accept values in MB as the original config > --with-wal-segsize option, unfortunately, the patch does not throw error as > in the config option when the units are specified. Yeah,

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] reorder tablespaces in basebackup tar stream for backup_label

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 7:18 PM, Michael Banck wrote: > Hi, > > Am Freitag, den 17.03.2017, 10:50 +0900 schrieb Michael Paquier: >> The comment block format is incorrect. I would think as well that this >> comment should say it is important to have the main tablespace

Re: [HACKERS] Two phase commit in ECPG

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Kuntal Ghosh > wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Michael Meskes >> wrote: Previous 002 patch lacked to add

[HACKERS] Re: Authentication tests, and plain 'password' authentication with a SCRAM verifier

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Committed, thanks. Thanks for the commit. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

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

Tom Lane wrote: > OT_WHOLE_LINE is not what you want because that results in verbatim > copying, without variable expansion or anything But if we want to implement "\if defined :foo" in the future isn't it just what we need? Also we could leave open the option to accept an SQL

Re: [HACKERS] Two phase commit in ECPG

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Michael Meskes wrote: >>> Previous 002 patch lacked to add describing PREPARE TRANSACTION. >>> Attached updated 002 patch. >> >> I just committed both

Re: [HACKERS] Radix tree for character conversion

On 03/17/2017 07:19 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: At Mon, 13 Mar 2017 21:07:39 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote in Hmm. A somewhat different approach might be more suitable for testing across versions, though. We could modify the

Re: [HACKERS] BRIN cost estimate

> 1. > > + Assert(nnumbers == 1); > > I think its a bad idea to Assert() this. The stat tuple can come from > a plugin which could do anything. Seems like if we need to be certain > of that then it should be an elog(ERROR), maybe mention that we > expected a 1 element array, but got elements.

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

I haven't yet handled all points, but meanwhile, some of the important points are discussed below ... On 6 March 2017 at 15:11, Amit Langote wrote: > >>> But that starts to sound less attractive when one realizes that >>> that will occur for every row that wants to

Re: [HACKERS] [patch] reorder tablespaces in basebackup tar stream for backup_label

Hi, Am Freitag, den 17.03.2017, 10:50 +0900 schrieb Michael Paquier: > The comment block format is incorrect. I would think as well that this > comment should say it is important to have the main tablespace listed > last it includes the WAL segments, and those need to contain all the > latest WAL

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

On 2017-03-17 02:28, Corey Huinker wrote: Attached is the latest work. Not everything is done yet. I post it because 0001.if_endif.v23.diff This patch does not compile for me (gcc 6.3.0): command.c:38:25: fatal error: conditional.h: No such file or directory #include "conditional.h"

Re: [HACKERS] Monitoring roles patch

Hi On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Denish Patel wrote: > Hi Dave, > > The patch failed applied... > > patch -p1 < /home/vagrant/pg_monitor.diff > patching file contrib/pg_buffercache/Makefile > patching file contrib/pg_buffercache/pg_buffercache--1.2--1.3.sql >

Re: [HACKERS] ANALYZE command progress checker

On 2017/03/17 10:38, Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 2:46 AM, vinayak wrote: Thank you for reviewing the patch. The attached patch incorporated Michael and Amit comments also. I reviewed this tonight. Thank you for reviewing the patch. +

[HACKERS] Re: Authentication tests, and plain 'password' authentication with a SCRAM verifier

On 03/14/2017 03:43 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: + /* +* The password looked like a SCRAM verifier, but could not be +* parsed. +*/ + elog(LOG, "invalid SCRAM verifier for user \"%s\"", username); This would be sent back to the client, no? I think that you

Re: [HACKERS] exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Tracking wait event for latches)

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Kuntal Ghosh > wrote: >> I've attached the updated patches. > > Thanks for the new versions. This begins to look really clear. Thanks again for the

[HACKERS] Re: BUG #13755: pgwin32_is_service not checking if SECURITY_SERVICE_SID is disabled

On 03/17/2017 12:21 AM, MauMau wrote: From: Heikki Linnakangas So, I think we still need the check for Local System. Thanks, fixed and confirmed that the error message is output in the event log. Committed, thanks! - Heikki -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Two phase commit in ECPG

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Michael Meskes wrote: >> Previous 002 patch lacked to add describing PREPARE TRANSACTION. >> Attached updated 002 patch. > > I just committed both patches and a backport of the bug fix itself. > Thanks again for finding and fixing.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ls_waldir() & pg_ls_logdir()

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Dave Page wrote: >> Hmm, good point. Google seems to be saying there isn't one. Patch >> updated as you suggest (and I've added back in a function declaration >> that

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned tables and relfilenode

On 2017/03/16 22:16, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> I think we'll need to store *somewhere* the mapping of which inh=false >> partitioned table RTE is the child of which inh=true (IOW, parent) >> partitioned table RTE.

Re: [HACKERS] asynchronous execution

At Thu, 16 Mar 2017 17:16:32 -0400, Corey Huinker wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Make pg_stop_backup() archive wait optional

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tsunakawa, > Takayuki > I made this ready for committer. The patch applied except for catversion.h, > the patch content looks good, and the target test passed as follows: Sorry, I reverted this to

Re: [HACKERS] Speedup twophase transactions

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Nikhil Sontakke wrote: >> > >> > Ok, we can do that and then yes, RecoverPreparedTransaction() can just >> > have >> > one loop going through the shmem entries. BUT, we cannot ignore >> > "inredo"+"ondisk" entries. For such entries, we

Re: [HACKERS] Potential data loss of 2PC files

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Ashutosh Bapat > The scope of this work has expanded, since last time I reviewed and marked > it as RFC. Right now I am busy with partition-wise joins and do not have > sufficient time to take a

Re: [HACKERS] Speedup twophase transactions

> > > > > Ok, we can do that and then yes, RecoverPreparedTransaction() can just > have > > one loop going through the shmem entries. BUT, we cannot ignore > > "inredo"+"ondisk" entries. For such entries, we will have to read and > > recover from the corresponding 2PC files. > > Yes. About other

Re: [HACKERS] IF (NOT) EXISTS in psql-completion

At Mon, 13 Mar 2017 10:42:05 -0400, David Steele wrote in <1e8297fd-f7f2-feab-848d-5121e45c8...@pgmasters.net> > It has been a while since this thread has received any comments or a new > patch. The general consensus seems to be that this feature is too large > a rewrite of

Re: [HACKERS] Speedup twophase transactions

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Nikhil Sontakke wrote: >> > >> > I don't think this will work. We cannot replace pg_twophase with shmem >> > entries + WAL pointers. This is because we cannot expect to have WAL >> > entries >> > around for long running prepared queries

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?

Hello, At Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:06:00 +1100, Venkata B Nagothi wrote in > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < > horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > I managed to reproduce this. A

Re: [HACKERS] Speedup twophase transactions

> > > > > I don't think this will work. We cannot replace pg_twophase with shmem > > entries + WAL pointers. This is because we cannot expect to have WAL > entries > > around for long running prepared queries which survive across > checkpoints. > > But at the beginning of recovery, we can mark

Re: [HACKERS] Speedup twophase transactions

> > Nikhil, do you mind if I try something like that? As we already know > what is the first XID when beginning redo via > ShmemVariableCache->nextXid it is possible to discard 2PC files that > should not be here. Yeah, that is ok. > What makes me worry is the control of the maximum > number

Re: [HACKERS] WAL Consistency checking for hash indexes

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Ashutosh Sharma > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Attached is the patch that allows WAL consistency tool to mask >> 'LH_PAGE_HAS_DEAD_TUPLES' flag in hash index. The flag

Re: [HACKERS] Microvacuum support for Hash Index

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Ashutosh Sharma > wrote: >>> >>> Don't you think, we should also clear it during the replay of >>> XLOG_HASH_DELETE? We might want to log the clear of

Re: [HACKERS] Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> I agree that more analysis can help us to decide if we can use subxids >> from PGPROC and if so under what conditions. Have you considered

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

Hello Corey & Tom, What is not done: - skipped slash commands still consume the rest of the line That last part is big, to quote Tom: * More generally, I do not think that the approach of having exec_command simply fall out immediately when in a false branch is going to work, because it

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH]: fix bug in SP-GiST box_ops

At Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:15:52 +0300, Nikita Glukhov wrote in <48f6934b-b994-4aa2-b6ad-aaa4f5a12...@postgrespro.ru> > On 10.03.2017 02:13, Tels wrote: > > > I can't comment on the code, but the grammar on the comments caught my > > eye: > >> +/* Can any range from

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

Hello, Thank you for your comments, I will post an updated patch soon. On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > > +assign_wal_segment_size(int newval, void *extra) > > Why does a PGC_INTERNAL GUC need an assign hook? I think the GUC > should only be there

[HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] Problem in using pgbench's --connect(-C) and --rate=rate(-R rate) options together.

Hello David, Repost from bugs. This patch does not apply at cccbdde: Indeed. It should not. The fix is for the 9.6 branch. The issue has been fixed by some heavy but very welcome restructuring in master. Marked as "Waiting for Author". I put it back to "Needs review". -- Fabien.

<    1   2