Re: [HACKERS] Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion

Hello Daniel, - how would it work, both with \set ... and \if ...? The idea is that the need to have two command (a SELECT .. \gset followed by an \if) and a temporary variable in-between would be lifted by implementing a close equivalent in one command. It would behave essentially the same

Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > So, because we want to create an Append path for each partitioned table in > a tree separately, we'll need RelOptInfo for each one, which in turn > requires an AppendRelInfo. Hmm. It's no more desirable to have an Append inside of another Ap

Re: [HACKERS] parallel explain analyze support not exercised

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> Please find the attached for the same. > >> +-- to increase the parallel query test coverage >> +EXPLAIN (analyze, timing off, summary off, costs off) SELECT * FROM tenk1; >> + QUERY PLAN >> +--

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On April 3, 2017 12:03:56 PM PDT, Alexander Korotkov wrote: >On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Andres Freund >wrote: > >> On 2017-03-29 00:17:02 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:27 PM, David Steele >> wrote: >> > > On 3/20/17 10:19 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >>

Re: [HACKERS] Should we cacheline align PGXACT?

On 2017-03-25 19:35:35 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:23 AM, David Steele wrote: > > > Hi Alexander > > > > On 3/10/17 8:08 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > > > Results look good for me. Idea of committing both of patches looks > >> attractive. > >> We have pretty

Re: [HACKERS] LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines

Hi, On 2017-03-31 13:38:31 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > It seems that on this platform definition of atomics should be provided by > > fallback.h. But it doesn't because I already defined > > PG_HAVE_ATOMIC_U32_SUPPORT > > in arch-ppc.h. I think in this case we shouldn't provide ppc-spe

Re: [HACKERS] Improve OR conditions on joined columns (common star schema problem)

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-02-14 14:18:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> One point that could use further review is whether the de-duplication >> algorithm is actually correct. I'm only about 95% convinced by the >> argument I wrote in planunionor.c's header comment. > Are you planning to push t

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] few fts functions for jsonb

On 01.04.2017 22:20, Andrew Dunstan wrote: I added documentation when I committed it for the new functions, in the FTS section. I'm not sure what we need to add to the JSON section if anything. Not sure, if this is related but the formatting of https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/func

Re: [HACKERS] Improve OR conditions on joined columns (common star schema problem)

Hi, On 2017-02-14 14:18:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I think this might be code-complete, modulo the question of whether we > want an enabling GUC for it. I'm still concerned about the question > of whether it adds more planning time than it's worth for most users. > (Obviously it needs some regre

Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query

Hi, On 2017-03-11 15:19:23 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > Here is a rebased patch. It seems that this patch is still undergoing development, review and performance evaluation. Therefore it seems like it'd be a bad idea to try to get this into v10. Any arguments against moving this to the next CF?

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On 2017-03-29 00:17:02 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:27 PM, David Steele wrote: > > > Hi Alexander, > > > > On 3/20/17 10:19 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > > >> On 03/20/2017 11:33 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > >> > >>> Please, find rebased patch in the attachm

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v.7] Move all am-related reloption code into src/backend/access/[am-name] and get rid of relopt_kind for custom AM

Hi Nikolay, On 2017-03-29 15:51:43 +0300, Nikolay Shaplov wrote: > Here is a new version of the patch. Thanks for the new version of the patch. As this commitfest is running out of time, and as the patch has been submitted late in the v10 development cycle, I've moved this patch to the next comm

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

On 2017-04-03 23:31:59 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > That seems like it could represent quite a lot of added overhead, > > on machines where gettimeofday() is slow ... which is still a lot > > of them, unfortunately. > > Maybe. I think we could eliminate restarting the timer for parse and > bind.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] few fts functions for jsonb

On 2017-04-01 16:20:46 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 03/31/2017 03:17 PM, Oleg Bartunov wrote: > > > > > > On 30 Mar 2017 23:43, "Dmitry Dolgov" <9erthali...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > On 31 March 2017 at 00:01, Andrew Dunstan > > >

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw: evaluate placeholdervars on remote server

Hi, On 2017-02-28 21:45:22 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > Here is a patch for $subject. This is a nontrivial patch, submitted just before the start of the last CF for postgres 10. Therefore I think we should move this to the next CF. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hac

Re: [HACKERS] identity columns

On 2017-03-29 13:40:29 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 3/24/17 05:29, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: > > It would be great if "DROP IDENTITY IF EXISTS" is in the current patch > > since we don't have any disagreements about "DROP IDENTITY" behavior > > and easiness of implementation of "IF EXISTS" there

Re: [HACKERS] Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test

Andres, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > I don't fundamentally disagree with anything here, but I think it'd be a > serious mistake to link this to the conversion of the pg_upgrade tests > to tap tests. I agree that we should move forward with that conversion, regardless of the rest

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14600: Passwords in user mappings leaked by psql \deu+ command

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Feike Steenbergen < feikesteenber...@gmail.com> wrote: > Forwarding message from pgsql-bugs for review > > > Attached a patch which copies the logic from commit > 93a6be63a55a8cd0d73b3fa81eb6a46013a3a974. > > In the current implementation we only consider privileg

Re: [HACKERS] parallel explain analyze support not exercised

On 2017-04-03 10:26:27 +0530, Rafia Sabih wrote: > On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > As visible in [1], the explain analyze codepaths of parallel query isn't > > exercised in the tests. That used to be not entirely trivial if the > > output was to be displayed

Re: [HACKERS] parallel bitmapscan isn't exercised in regression tests

On 2017-04-01 17:23:04 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 12:16 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The parallel code-path isn't actually exercised in the tests added in > > [1], as evidenced by [2] (they just explain). That imo needs to be > > fixed. > > Thanks for reportin

Fwd: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017 Proposal for "Explicitly support predicate locks in index access methods besides btree"

-- Forwarded message -- From: anant khandelwal Date: Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:13 PM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017 Proposal for "Explicitly support predicate locks in index access methods besides btree" To: Kevin Grittner First ,I have read from this https://github.com/postgres

Re: [HACKERS] Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test

On 2017-04-03 11:34:52 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > Peter, > > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > On 4/3/17 09:07, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > I had for some time a WIP patch on which dust has accumulated, so > > > attached is a more polished version. In more detail

Re: [HACKERS] pg_partman 3.0.0 - real-world usage of native partitioning and a case for native default

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:13 AM, Ashutosh Bapat < ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Keith Fiske wrote: > >> I've gotten pg_partman working with native partitioning already so I can >> hopefully have things ready to work when 10 is released. I've got a b

Re: [HACKERS] Can't compile with profiling after BRIN autosummarization

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: > make maintainer-clean > /dev/null ; ./configure --enable-profiling > > /dev/null && make -j8 >/dev/null > > In file included from ipc.c:29: > ../../../../src/include/postmaster/autovacuum.h:73: error: expected > declaration specifiers or '...'

Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017 Proposal for "Explicitly support predicate locks in index access methods besides btree"

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 9:03 AM, anant khandelwal wrote: > My name is Anant Khandelwal currently i am pursuing masters from IIT - Delhi > and previously i am a software engineer. > > I am particularly interested in working on the project "Explicitly support > predicate locks in index access method

Re: [HACKERS] Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion

Tom Lane wrote: > I really dislike this syntax proposal. It would get us into having > to count nested brackets, and distinguish quoted from unquoted brackets, > and so on ... and for what? It's not really better than > > \if sql select 1 from pg_catalog.pg_extension where extname='pg

[HACKERS] Can't compile with profiling after BRIN autosummarization

make maintainer-clean > /dev/null ; ./configure --enable-profiling > /dev/null && make -j8 >/dev/null In file included from ipc.c:29: ../../../../src/include/postmaster/autovacuum.h:73: error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before 'BlockNumber' make[4]: *** [ipc.o] Error 1 make[3]: ***

Re: [HACKERS] bumping HASH_VERSION to 3

On 03/31/2017 11:19 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Robert Haas > wrote: > > Starting a new thread about this to get more visibility. > > Despite the extensive work that has been done on hash indexes this > release, we have

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 03/31/2017 05:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Mike Palmiotto > wrote: >> Attached you will find two patches, which were rebased on master as of >> 156d388 (applied with `git am --revert [patch file]`). The first gets >> rid of some pesky compiler warnings and the se

Re: [HACKERS] Unable to build doc on latest head

On 4/3/17 02:44, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > [1] says that id.attribute is supported in stylesheets version 1.77.1. > Do I need to update stylesheets version? How do I do it? Any help will > be appreciated. The oldest version among the ones listed at http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/ that wo

Re: [HACKERS] delta relations in AFTER triggers

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Thomas Munro writes: >> Or perhaps the code to inject trigger data transition tables into SPI >> (a near identical code block these three patches) should be somewhere >> common so that each PLs would only need to call a function. If so, >> where

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Mike Palmiotto > wrote: >> Attached you will find two patches, which were rebased on master as of >> 156d388 (applied with `git am --revert [patch file]`). The first gets >> rid of some pesky compiler warnings

Re: [HACKERS] Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test

Peter, * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 4/3/17 09:07, Michael Paquier wrote: > > I had for some time a WIP patch on which dust has accumulated, so > > attached is a more polished version. In more details, here is what > > happens: > > - test.sh is removed. > > - vc

Re: [HACKERS] Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test

On 2017-04-03 11:22:02 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 4/3/17 09:07, Michael Paquier wrote: > > I had for some time a WIP patch on which dust has accumulated, so > > attached is a more polished version. In more details, here is what > > happens: > > - test.sh is removed. > > - vcregress.pl lose

Re: [HACKERS] Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test

On 4/3/17 09:07, Michael Paquier wrote: > I had for some time a WIP patch on which dust has accumulated, so > attached is a more polished version. In more details, here is what > happens: > - test.sh is removed. > - vcregress.pl loses upgradecheck. > - The new test is added. In the case of MSVC thi

Re: [HACKERS] Fix slot name change handling for subscriptions

On 3/24/17 10:45, Petr Jelinek wrote: > ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... WITH (SLOT NAME = foo) will make the worker dies > on error about unexpected subscription changed. It's my oversight in the > original logical replication patch-set. Attached patch fixes it to > behave same way as other changes to subsc

Re: [HACKERS] Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test

Craig, Michael, * Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 3 April 2017 at 21:07, Michael Paquier wrote: > > I am parking that in the next commit fest. > > Great. > > Count me in as reviewer, and feel free to poke me if I get caught up > in other things. I'm interested in this also. >

Re: [HACKERS] Unable to build doc on latest head

Ashutosh Bapat writes: > Recently my doc build has started failing with errors > runtime error: file stylesheet.xsl line 57 element call-template > The called template 'id.attribute' was not found. > [1] says that id.attribute is supported in stylesheets version 1.77.1. Do I > need to update styl

Re: [HACKERS] bug/oversight in TestLib.pm and PostgresNode.pm

On 3/22/17 11:51, Erik Rijkers wrote: > While trying to test pgbench's stderr (looking for 'creating tables' in > output of the initialisation step) I ran into these two bugs (or > perhaps better 'oversights'). Perhaps pgbench should be printing progress messages to stdout instead? > But espec

Re: [HACKERS] Questionable tag usage

On 3/21/17 21:50, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > This question is still open. Do we want to keep the new linking style > Section 1.2.3, "Title", or revert back to the old style just Section > 1.2.3? It's a simple toggle setting. Changed back to old style, per discussion. -- Peter Eisentraut

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

> That seems like it could represent quite a lot of added overhead, > on machines where gettimeofday() is slow ... which is still a lot > of them, unfortunately. Maybe. I think we could eliminate restarting the timer for parse and bind. Best regards, -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: h

Re: [HACKERS] [GSoC] Push-based query executor discussion

Time is short, student's application deadline is on 3rd April. I decided to reformulate the project scope myself. Here is the proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dvBETE6IJA9AcXd11XJNPsF_VPcDhSjy7rlsxj262l8/edit?usp=sharing The main idea is that now there is a formalized goal of the proj

Re: [HACKERS] Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion

"Daniel Verite" writes: > Let's imagine that psql would support a syntax like this: > \if [select current_setting('server_version_num')::int < 11] > or > \if [select 1 from pg_catalog.pg_extension where extname='pgcrypto'] I really dislike this syntax proposal. It would get us into havin

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

Tatsuo Ishii writes: >> * The difference is that the Execute message stops the statement_timeout >> timer, > No. Parse, bind and Execute message indivually stops and starts the > statement_timeout timer with the patch. That seems like it could represent quite a lot of added overhead, on machin

Re: [HACKERS] delta relations in AFTER triggers

Thomas Munro writes: > Or perhaps the code to inject trigger data transition tables into SPI > (a near identical code block these three patches) should be somewhere > common so that each PLs would only need to call a function. If so, > where should that go? spi.c? regard

[HACKERS] wait event documentation

Right now, the information on wait events is organized into one giant table inside https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/monitoring-stats.html#monitoring-stats-views -- the wait event type is inserted into the lefthand column of the table using moreRows="...", which is awkward to maintain a

Re: [HACKERS] Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test

On 3 April 2017 at 21:07, Michael Paquier wrote: > Hi all, > > The $subject has been mentioned a couple of times already, the last > one being here: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170401072814.ga2528...@tornado.leadboat.com > > The code tree has to maintain now two set of scripts for th

[HACKERS] Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test

Hi all, The $subject has been mentioned a couple of times already, the last one being here: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170401072814.ga2528...@tornado.leadboat.com The code tree has to maintain now two set of scripts for the same test: test.sh for all *nix platforms, and vcregress.pl

Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0

On 04/03/2017 07:57 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote: On 03/31/2017 08:27 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: - Do a per-index rebuild and not a per-relation rebuild for concurrent indexing. Doing a per-relation reindex has the disadvantage that many ob

Re: [HACKERS] Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion

Fabien COELHO wrote: > My 0.02 € about server-side expressions: ISTM that there is nothing > obvious/easy to do to include these: > > - how would it work, both with \set ... and \if ...? The idea is that the need to have two command (a SELECT .. \gset followed by an \if) and a tempora

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

Hi Amit, Thanks for updating the patch. Since ddl.sgml got updated on Saturday, patch needs a rebase. > On 31 March 2017 at 16:54, Amit Khandekar wrote: >> On 31 March 2017 at 14:04, Amit Langote >> wrote: >>> On 2017/03/28 19:12, Amit Khandekar wrote: In the section 5.11 "Partitioning"

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioning vs ON CONFLICT

On 2017/04/01 6:44, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> In my opinion, for the very limited ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING + no >> inference specification case, the implementation should not care about >> the presence or absence of unique indexes within or acros

Re: [HACKERS] strange parallel query behavior after OOM crashes

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Kuntal Ghosh > wrote: >> 2. the server restarts automatically, initialize >> BackgroundWorkerData->parallel_register_count and >> BackgroundWorkerData->parallel_terminate_count in the shared memory. >> After th

[HACKERS] Refactoring identifier checks to consistently use strcmp

Testing DefElem options is done with both strcmp() and pg_strcasecmp() a bit mixed. Since the option defnames are all lowercased, either via IDENT, keyword rules or “by hand” with makeString(), using strcmp() is safe (and assumed to be so in quite a lot of places). While it’s not incorrect per se

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14600: Passwords in user mappings leaked by psql \deu+ command

Please add this to 07/2017 commitfest. It looks like an existing leak, so, may not be considered as an open item for v10. On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Feike Steenbergen < feikesteenber...@gmail.com> wrote: > Forwarding message from pgsql-bugs for review > > > Attached a patch which copies th

Re: [HACKERS] pg_partman 3.0.0 - real-world usage of native partitioning and a case for native default

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Keith Fiske wrote: > I've gotten pg_partman working with native partitioning already so I can > hopefully have things ready to work when 10 is released. I've got a branch > on github with this version for anyone to test and I'll hopefully have this > released in t

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

On 1 April 2017 at 16:42, Claudio Freire wrote: > > I thought to take a quick look at this patch. I'll probably take a > deeper look later, but some initial comments: > > -typedef struct RangeQueryClause > +typedef struct CachedSelectivityClause > { > -struct RangeQueryClause *next;/*

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

Thank you for reviewing my patch! > Hello, > > > I've reviewed the patch. My understanding is as follows. Please correct me > if I'm wrong. > > * The difference is that the Execute message stops the statement_timeout > timer, No. Parse, bind and Execute message indivually stops and starts

Re: [HACKERS] Foreign tables don't enforce the partition constraint

Hi Ashutosh, On 2017/04/03 15:49, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >>> Similarly, a partition constraint >>> should also be enforced at the foreign server. Probably we should >>> update documentation of create foreign table to mention this. >> >> That is a good idea. >> >> Here's the patch. Thanks for creat

Re: [HACKERS] Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion

Hello Tom, about version numbers [...] Of course, there are probably other ways to do that, but my point is that you haven't made a case why we need to put this in now rather than later. Indeed, I have not. What about having the ability to test for minor versions? \if false -- pre 1

Re: [HACKERS] Logical decoding on standby

On 3 April 2017 at 15:27, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 3 April 2017 at 13:46, Craig Ringer wrote: > >> OK, updated catalog_xmin logging patch attached. > > Ahem, that should be v5. ... and here's v6, which returns to the separate xl_xact_catalog_xmin_advance approach. pgintented. This is what I fa

Re: [HACKERS] Logical decoding on standby

On 3 April 2017 at 13:46, Craig Ringer wrote: > OK, updated catalog_xmin logging patch attached. Ahem, that should be v5. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services From 7f742f582e1f6f8f23c4e9d78cd0298180e5387c Mon

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid GatherMerge crash when there are no workers.

Hi, On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Andres Freund >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On 2017-04-01 01:22:14 +, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> Avoid GatherMerge crash when there are no

Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

Am Samstag, den 01.04.2017, 17:29 +0200 schrieb Magnus Hagander: > I've applied a backpatch to 9.4. Prior to that pretty much the entire > patch is a conflict, so it would need a full rewrite. Thanks! Michael -- Michael Banck Projektleiter / Senior Berater Tel.: +49 2166 9901-171 Fax: +49 21

Re: [HACKERS] Statement timeout behavior in extended queries

Hello, I've reviewed the patch. My understanding is as follows. Please correct me if I'm wrong. * The difference is that the Execute message stops the statement_timeout timer, so that the execution of one statement doesn't shorten the timeout period of subsequent statements when they are ru

<    1   2