Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017 Proposal

Hello, Mark! On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Mark Rofail wrote: > Kindly find my proposal attached to this email. > I'd like to ask what do you mean in research item number 3? 3. Making the full-table sequential scan GIN-indexable​ instead seems very > reasonable since

Re: [HACKERS] identity columns

On 4/4/17 22:53, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: > The next nitpickings to the last patch. I try to get places with > lacking of variables' initialization. > All other things seem good for me now. I'll continue to review the > patch while you're fixing the current notes. Committed with your changes (see

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

Kevin Grittner writes: > Note that the final proposal is here: > https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/serve/5874530240167936/ I'm just getting a blank page at that URL? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

[HACKERS] subscription worker doesn't start immediately on eabled

Hello. I found dubious behavior while playing with logical replication. When we disable a subscription, replication worker immediately stops. =# ALTER SUBSCRIPTION s1 DISABLE; On the other hand even if we enable a subscription, worker doesn't start immediately. It takes 3 minutes in the worst

Re: [HACKERS] Re: new set of psql patches for loading (saving) data from (to) text, binary files

Greetings, * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote: > 2017-04-06 3:34 GMT+02:00 Stephen Frost : > > Having the template not require the row/column place-holders included > > strikes me as more likely to be confusing. My initial thinking around > > this was that users

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Collect and use multi-column dependency stats

On 5 April 2017 at 18:48, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: >> Collect and use multi-column dependency stats > > The buildfarm is unhappy about the fact that this changed the API > for clauselist_selectivity(). I am not convinced that that change >

Re: [HACKERS] GSOC'17 project introduction: Parallel COPY execution with errors handling

Hi, Alexey! On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:54 AM, Alexey Kondratov < kondratov.alek...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you for your responses and valuable comments! > > I have written draft proposal https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y4mc_ > PCvRTjLsae-_fhevYfepv4sxaqwhOo4rlxvK1c/edit > > It seems that

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting

On 05.04.2017 16:06, Arthur Zakirov wrote: I'd like to focus on "refevalfunc" and "refnestedfunc" fields as I did earlier. I think using Oid type for them is a bad approach. "..._fetch" and "..._assign" functions in catalog is unnecessary movement to me. User of subscript of his type may think

Re: [HACKERS] LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Alexander Korotkov < a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> On 2017-04-03 11:56:13 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: >> > Have you done x86 benchmarking? >> >> I think unless such benchmarking is

Re: [HACKERS] LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-04-03 11:56:13 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > > +/* > > > + * Generic implementation of pg_atomic_fetch_mask_add_u32() via loop > > > + * of compare & exchange. > > > + */ > > > +static inline uint32 > > >

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

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 12:13 AM, Arseny Sher wrote: > 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_ >

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

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dvBETE6IJA9AcXd11XJNPsF_VPcDhSjy7rlsxj262l8/edit?usp=sharing > I'd love to see a comment from Andres Freund who is leading executor > performance improvements. Note that

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/04/06 13:08, Keith Fiske wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Keith Fiske wrote: > >> Only issue I see with this, and I'm not sure if it is an issue, is what > >> happens to that default constraint

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Remove unused argument in btree_xlog_split

Hi Robert, > Hmm. I don't see anything wrong with that, particularly, but it seems > we also don't need the distinction between XLOG_BTREE_SPLIT_L and > XLOG_BTREE_SPLIT_L_ROOT or likewise between XLOG_BTREE_SPLIT_R and > XLOG_BTREE_SPLIT_R_ROOT -- in which case I think this patch should go > a

Re: [HACKERS] Interval for launching the table sync worker

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > At Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:02:14 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote in > <20170406.170214.263553093.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> >> At Thu, 6 Apr

[HACKERS] Uninitialized variable introduced in 3217327053638085d24dd4d276e7c1f7ac2c4c6b

Peter, Can you perhaps initialize the variable 'address' to suppress the warning? Thanks. Mark Dilger tablecmds.c:5984:6: warning: variable 'address' is used uninitialized whenever 'if' condition is false [-Wsometimes-uninitialized] if (generatedEl) ^~~

Re: [HACKERS] subscription worker doesn't start immediately on eabled

On 06/04/17 14:24, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Hello. I found dubious behavior while playing with logical > replication. > > When we disable a subscription, replication worker immediately stops. > > =# ALTER SUBSCRIPTION s1 DISABLE; > > On the other hand even if we enable a subscription, worker

Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql10 Bug report. (pg_catalog.pg_statistic_ext does not exist)

mark wrote: > m=# create table mytable (myid serial, mytext text); > CREATE TABLE > m=# \d mytable > ERROR: relation "pg_catalog.pg_statistic_ext" does not exist > LINE 8: FROM pg_catalog.pg_statistic_ext stat WHERE starelid = '163... > ^ Ah, what happens is you're using a new

[HACKERS] Re: Letting the client choose the protocol to use during a SASL exchange

On 04/06/2017 08:13 AM, Noah Misch wrote: If any SCRAM open item is a beta blocker, it's this one. (But SASLprep is also in or near that status.) Post-beta wire protocol changes are bad, considering beta is normally the time for projects like pgjdbc and npgsql to start adapting to such

[HACKERS] Re: Uninitialized variable introduced in 3217327053638085d24dd4d276e7c1f7ac2c4c6b

On 4/6/17 10:59, Mark Dilger wrote: > Can you perhaps initialize the variable 'address' to suppress the warning? > Thanks. A potential fix for this has been pushed. > tablecmds.c:5984:6: warning: variable 'address' is used uninitialized > whenever 'if' condition is false

Re: [HACKERS] Uninitialized variable introduced in 3217327053638085d24dd4d276e7c1f7ac2c4c6b

> On Apr 6, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > On 4/6/17 10:59, Mark Dilger wrote: >> Can you perhaps initialize the variable 'address' to suppress the warning? >> Thanks. > > A potential fix for this has been pushed. It works for me. Thanks

Re: [HACKERS] Duplicate usage of tablespace location?

Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes: > I noticed by the following report, PostgreSQL can share the same > directory as tablespaces of two servers with different > pg-versions. > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2008148.rxBNyNRHPZ@peanuts2 > 8.4 checked that the

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

Sorry, I didn't notice that this was going to a public list. That URL is only available to people who signed up as mentors for PostgreSQL GSoC participation this year. Does the link to the draft work for you? -- Kevin Grittner -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

Joe Conway writes: > I'm going to push the attached in a few hours unless there is any > additional discussion. As stated above we'll do the regression changes > in a separate patch once that is sorted. I used Tom's approach and > comment wording for 0001a. Looks generally

Re: [HACKERS] Remove pg_stat_progress_vacuum from Table 28.2

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > It seems pg_stat_progress_vacuum is not supposed to appear in the table > titled "Collected Statistics Views". It was added by c16dc1aca. Attached > patch fixes that. Instead, it should appear in the table of

Re: [HACKERS] Faster methods for getting SPI results (460% improvement)

On 4/6/17 03:50, Craig Ringer wrote: > But otherwise, pending docs changes, I think it's ready for committer. My opinion is still that this is ultimately the wrong approach. The right fix for performance issues in PL/Python is to change PL/Python not to materialize the list of tuples. Now with

Re: [HACKERS] Faster methods for getting SPI results (460% improvement)

On 4/6/17 9:04 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 4/6/17 03:50, Craig Ringer wrote: But otherwise, pending docs changes, I think it's ready for committer. My opinion is still that this is ultimately the wrong approach. The right fix for performance issues in PL/Python is to change PL/Python not

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication and Character encoding

On 4/5/17 21:32, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > At Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:33:51 -0400, Peter Eisentraut > wrote in > <5401fef6-c0c0-7e8a-d8b1-169e30cbd...@2ndquadrant.com> >> After further thinking, I prefer the alternative approach of using >> pq_sendcountedtext() as

Re: [HACKERS] BRIN cost estimate

David Rowley writes: > + *indexTotalCost += 0.1 * cpu_operator_cost * estimatedRanges * > + pagesPerRange; > This is trying to cost up the following code in bringetbitmap() > if (addrange) > { > BlockNumber pageno; > for (pageno = heapBlk; > pageno <= heapBlk +

Re: [HACKERS] background sessions

On 4/4/17 10:28, Robert Haas wrote: > So is this patch going anywhere? Not right now. It will take some time to sort out your feedback and do some refactoring. I will close the patch for now. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support,

Re: [HACKERS] Faster methods for getting SPI results (460% improvement)

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 4/6/17 03:50, Craig Ringer wrote: >> But otherwise, pending docs changes, I think it's ready for committer. > My opinion is still that this is ultimately the wrong approach. The > right fix for performance issues in PL/Python is to

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 04/05/2017 02:29 PM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: > I'm going to hold the partition table regression changes for a > separate patch and include some ORDER BY fixes. Will post tomorrow > > In the meantime, attached are the latest and greatest patches. I'm going to push the attached in a few hours

Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 7:30 AM, Rahila Syed wrote: > Hello, > > Thanks a lot for testing and reporting this. Please find attached an > updated patch with the fix. The patch also contains a fix > regarding operator used at the time of creating expression as default >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal

On 2/1/17 22:03, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut >> wrote: >>> On 1/19/17 12:47 PM, Andrey Borodin wrote: 4. There is some controversy

Re: [HACKERS] No-op case in ExecEvalConvertRowtype

Ashutosh Bapat writes: > In ExecEvalConvertRowtype(), if the input row doesn't require any > conversion, we simply return that row as is. Huh. That's been like that for a very long time. > I tried to create a testcase where this assertion would fail without >

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

Robert Haas writes: > ... But the underlying point here is that > the only thing you really know about the function is that it's got to > be a strategy-3 operator in some btree opclass; if that guarantees > strictness, then so be it -- but I wasn't able to find anything in

Re: [HACKERS] Interval for launching the table sync worker

On 06/04/17 16:44, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: >> At Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:02:14 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI >> wrote in >>

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On 4/6/17 07:13, Beena Emerson wrote: > Does the options 16, 64 and 1024 seem good. > We can remove sizes below 16 as most have agreed and as per the > discussion, 64MB and 1GB seems favoured. We could probably allow 32MB > since it was an already allowed size? I don't see the need to remove

Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_wal_write statistics view

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:51 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017-03-30 13:10:41 +1100, Haribabu Kommi wrote: >> diff --git a/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c >> b/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c >> index 5d58f09..a29c108 100644 >> ---

[HACKERS] Postgresql10 Bug report. (pg_catalog.pg_statistic_ext does not exist)

apologies if someone has already reported this. steps to reproduce. install PG10 rpms. create table. using psql 10 \d the table. note the error below. m=# create table mytable (myid serial, mytext text); CREATE TABLE m=# \d mytable ERROR: relation "pg_catalog.pg_statistic_ext" does not

Re: [HACKERS] Implementation of SASLprep for SCRAM-SHA-256

Another version attached. I think this is now in committable state, but there's been a lot of small changes here and there, so please have one more look over it if you have a chance. I'm planning to push this tomorrow, after sleeping on it. The code-organization issue with the utf8

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Letting the client choose the protocol to use during a SASL exchange

On 06/04/17 19:05, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 04/06/2017 08:13 AM, Noah Misch wrote: If any SCRAM open item is a beta blocker, it's this one. (But SASLprep is also in or near that status.) Post-beta wire protocol changes are bad, considering beta is normally the time for projects like

Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan

2017-04-06 12:30 GMT+02:00 Andrew Dunstan : > > > On 04/05/2017 05:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2017-04-05 17:22:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Andres Freund writes: > >>> I'd like some input from other committers whether we want this.

Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql10 Bug report. (pg_catalog.pg_statistic_ext does not exist)

Alvaro Herrera writes: > mark wrote: >> m=# create table mytable (myid serial, mytext text); >> CREATE TABLE >> m=# \d mytable >> ERROR: relation "pg_catalog.pg_statistic_ext" does not exist > Ah, what happens is you're using a new psql with a pre-10 server. Yeah, >

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication access control patches

On 3/29/17 19:01, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> So this CREATE SUBSCRIPTION priv actually gives you the power to cause >> the system to open network connections to the outside world. It's not >> something you give freely to random strangers -- should be guarded >> moderately tight, because it could be

Re: [HACKERS] Implementation of SASLprep for SCRAM-SHA-256

On 04/06/2017 08:42 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: D'oh. Here's a new version, with saslprep.h included. And here it is for real. Sigh. There is for example this portion in the new tables: +static const Codepoint prohibited_output_chars[] = +{ + 0xD800, 0xF8FF, /* C.3, C.5 */

Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql10 Bug report. (pg_catalog.pg_statistic_ext does not exist)

it would appear that it didn't restart when I thought it had with the service command. apologies, I'm not able to reproduce anymore after restarting things. On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > mark wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] Re: new set of psql patches for loading (saving) data from (to) text, binary files

2017-04-06 14:47 GMT+02:00 Stephen Frost : > Greetings, > > * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote: > > 2017-04-06 3:34 GMT+02:00 Stephen Frost : > > > Having the template not require the row/column place-holders included > > > strikes me as more

Re: [HACKERS] Functions Immutable but not parallel safe?

On 4/5/17 12:26, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> On 4/5/17 09:58, Robert Haas wrote: - Maybe add a check to opr_sanity to make sure the default set of functions is configured the way we want? >>> That

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

On 4/5/17 19:14, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On 2017-02-28 22:30:16 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2017-02-28 23:42:45 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> On 1/26/17 22:46, Andres Freund wrote: On 2016-09-30 15:24:09 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Yeah, I have committed a

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On 4/5/17 7:29 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 5 April 2017 at 06:04, Beena Emerson wrote: >> >> The WALfilename - LSN mapping disruption for higher values you mean? Is >> there anything else I have missed? > > I see various issues raised but not properly addressed > > 1.

Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication and Character encoding

On 4/6/17 11:47, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 4/5/17 21:32, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: >> At Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:33:51 -0400, Peter Eisentraut >> wrote in >> <5401fef6-c0c0-7e8a-d8b1-169e30cbd...@2ndquadrant.com> >>> After further thinking, I prefer the

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication apply to run with sync commit off by default

On 3/24/17 10:49, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 07/03/17 06:23, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> there has been discussion at the logical replication initial copy thread >> [1] about making apply work with sync commit off by default for >> performance reasons and adding option to change that per

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 04/06/2017 08:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway writes: >> I'm going to push the attached in a few hours unless there is any >> additional discussion. As stated above we'll do the regression changes >> in a separate patch once that is sorted. I used Tom's approach and >>

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM authentication, take three

On 04/06/2017 08:36 AM, Noah Misch wrote: On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:36:13PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: I didn't include the last-minute changes to the way you specify this in pg_hba.conf. So it's still just "scram". I agree in general that we should think about how to extend that too,

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

Joe Conway writes: > Any thoughts on whether 0001a and 0001b ought to be backpatched? I'm > thinking not given the lack of past complaints but it might make sense > to do. I think 0001a absolutely needs to be, because it is fixing what is really an ABI violation:

Re: [HACKERS] Letting the client choose the protocol to use during a SASL exchange

On 06/04/17 22:05, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs writes: How would we provide the list of protocols? Surely the protocol is defined by pg_hba.conf, which makes it dependent upon username, database and ip range. If the list were accurate, it would allow an attacker to

Re: [HACKERS] Letting the client choose the protocol to use during a SASL exchange

On 6 April 2017 at 16:05, Tom Lane wrote: > Perhaps we could turn this around: have the client send (in the connection > request packet) a list of auth protocols it thinks it is able to handle. > (I'm envisioning this as being more or less fixed for any one version of > any

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

On 2017-04-06 10:00:32 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:51 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > > Sure I can do that, In attached patch, I only fixed the problem of not > > executing the bitmap test. Now, I will add few cases to cover other > > parts especially

Re: [HACKERS] Fast Default WIP patch for discussion

Hi, On 2017-04-05 22:31:15 -0700, Serge Rielau wrote: > Andres, > Yes, I still want to push this in. However I have not had time to get back to > it. I’m embarrassed to say that I don’t even know where the comments that > were issued occurred. > Cheers Serge You mean

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

David Rowley writes: > On 2 April 2017 at 21:21, David Rowley wrote: >> I've attached an updated patch which updates the regression test output of >> a recent commit to include the "Unique Inner" in the expected results. > The patch

Re: [HACKERS] Letting the client choose the protocol to use during a SASL exchange

On 4 April 2017 at 02:02, Michael Paquier wrote: > Hi all, > > There is still one open item pending for SCRAM that has not been > treated which is mentioned here: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/b081887e-1712-3aa4-7dbe-e012333d5...@iki.fi > > When doing an

Re: [HACKERS] Letting the client choose the protocol to use during a SASL exchange

Simon Riggs writes: > How would we provide the list of protocols? Surely the protocol is > defined by pg_hba.conf, which makes it dependent upon username, > database and ip range. If the list were accurate, it would allow an > attacker to discover how best to attack. If the

[HACKERS] Row Level Security UPDATE Confusion

I'm a little confused on why a SELECT policy fires against the NEW record for an UPDATE when using multiple FOR policies. The ALL policy doesn't seem to have that restriction. DROP TABLE IF EXISTS t; CREATE USER simple; CREATE USER split; CREATE TABLE t(value int); grant select, update on table

Re: [HACKERS] TPC-H Q20 from 1 hour to 19 hours!

Hi, I've been looking at this issue today, and so far I don't think it's a bug in the foreign key estimation. It seems mostly that the 9.5 estimates were hopelessly bad, and the join estimation changes simply pushed it a tiny bit the wrong direction. Although maybe there is a bug (or at

Re: [HACKERS] parallel explain analyze support not exercised

Hi, On 2017-04-03 17:11:33 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> If this is 'make check', then we should have 8 parallel workers > >> allowed, so if we only do one of these at a time, then I think we're > >> OK. But if somebody

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

On 2/15/17 11:19, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > So I would like to have a background worker limit per user, as you > allude to. Attached is a patch that implements a GUC setting > max_worker_processes_per_user. > > Besides the uses for background sessions, but it can also be useful for > parallel

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

On 22 March 2017 at 14:58, Oleg Bartunov wrote: > Should we reject this interesting project, which based on several years of > research work of academician group in the institute ? May be better help him > to reformulate the scope of project and let him work ? I don't know

Re: [HACKERS] No-op case in ExecEvalConvertRowtype

I wrote: > Ashutosh Bapat writes: >> In ExecEvalConvertRowtype(), if the input row doesn't require any >> conversion, we simply return that row as is. > Huh. That's been like that for a very long time. So I imagined that this was an ancient bug, and was

Re: [HACKERS] parallel explain analyze support not exercised

Andres Freund writes: > I guess we'll have to see. My personal conclusion is that greater > coverage of parallelism is worth some very minor config trouble for > people doing installcheck against clusters with non-default config. The buildfarm seems entirely unwilling to play

Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > I'm not sure you entirely got my point here. If tuplesort_gettupleslot > is called with copy = true, it'll store that tuple w/ > ExecStoreMinimalTuple passing shouldFree = copy = true. If the caller > is in a short-lived

Re: [HACKERS] BRIN cost estimate

Tom Lane wrote: > TBH, I think that code is in the noise. It doesn't involve any disk > access, or catalog access, or user-defined function calls. I wouldn't > bother trying to account for it. I removed it in the pushed version. > What you should be accounting for is the ensuing heap page

Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Pushed with very minor wording changes. This had a typo: + * If copy is true, the slot receives a copied tuple that'll that will stay -- Peter Geoghegan VMware vCenter Server https://www.vmware.com/ -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] Letting the client choose the protocol to use during a SASL exchange

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: > I don't see it. The message AuthenticationSASL.String could contain a > CSV of the SCRAM protocols supported. This is specially important to support > channel binding (which is just another protocol name for

[HACKERS] Time to change pg_regress diffs to unified by default?

Hi, I personally, and I know of a bunch of other regular contributors, find context diffs very hard to read. Besides general dislike, for things like regression test output context diffs are just not well suited. E.g. in

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Collect and use multi-column dependency stats

On 7 April 2017 at 00:47, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 5 April 2017 at 18:48, Tom Lane wrote: >> Simon Riggs writes: >>> Collect and use multi-column dependency stats >> >> The buildfarm is unhappy about the fact that this changed the

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On 4/6/17 5:05 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 04/06/2017 08:33 PM, David Steele wrote: >> On 4/5/17 7:29 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> >>> 2. It's not clear to me the advantage of being able to pick varying >>> filesizes. I see great disadvantage in having too many options, which >>> greatly increases

Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Pushed with very minor wording changes. Thanks Andres. -- Peter Geoghegan VMware vCenter Server https://www.vmware.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

Re: [HACKERS] Time to change pg_regress diffs to unified by default?

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > I personally, and I know of a bunch of other regular contributors, find > context diffs very hard to read. Besides general dislike, for things > like regression test output context diffs are just not well suited.

Re: [HACKERS] Time to change pg_regress diffs to unified by default?

On 04/06/2017 06:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > I personally, and I know of a bunch of other regular contributors, find > context diffs very hard to read. Besides general dislike, for things > like regression test output context diffs are just not well suited. > E.g. in >

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On 04/06/2017 11:45 PM, David Steele wrote: On 4/6/17 5:05 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: On 04/06/2017 08:33 PM, David Steele wrote: On 4/5/17 7:29 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: 2. It's not clear to me the advantage of being able to pick varying filesizes. I see great disadvantage in having too many

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: >>> If you ask me, I'd just leave: >>> >>> + if (rqlist->hibound == DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL || rqlist->lobound == >>> DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL) >>> + { >>> + /* No point in checking null selectivity, DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL >>> implies

Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument

On 2017-04-04 13:49:11 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> static bool > >> tuplesort_gettuple_common(Tuplesortstate *state, bool forward, > >> @@ -2091,12 +2092,15 @@ tuplesort_gettuple_common(Tuplesortstate *state, >

Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size

On 04/06/2017 08:33 PM, David Steele wrote: On 4/5/17 7:29 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: On 5 April 2017 at 06:04, Beena Emerson wrote: The WALfilename - LSN mapping disruption for higher values you mean? Is there anything else I have missed? I see various issues raised

Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On 04/06/2017 12:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway writes: >> Any thoughts on whether 0001a and 0001b ought to be backpatched? I'm >> thinking not given the lack of past complaints but it might make sense >> to do. > > I think 0001a absolutely needs to be, because it is

Re: [HACKERS] Letting the client choose the protocol to use during a SASL exchange

On 6 April 2017 at 16:15, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: > Per the SCRAM RFC, it is the server who advertises and the client who > picks. Yes, but what does the RFC say about how to handle servers with an pg_hba.conf? How and what will we advertise? -- Simon Riggs

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Increase parallel bitmap scan test coverage.

On 2017-04-06 20:43:48 +, Andres Freund wrote: > Increase parallel bitmap scan test coverage. > > Author: Dilip Kumar > Discussion: > https://postgr.es/m/20170331184603.qcp7t4md5bzxb...@alap3.anarazel.de This turned the !linux buildfarm red, because it relies on setting

Re: [HACKERS] parallel explain analyze support not exercised

On 2017-04-06 17:33:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > I guess we'll have to see. My personal conclusion is that greater > > coverage of parallelism is worth some very minor config trouble for > > people doing installcheck against clusters with non-default

Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument

On 2017-03-13 18:14:07 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Please. You might want to hit the existing ones with a separate patch, > >> but it

Re: [HACKERS] Letting the client choose the protocol to use during a SASL exchange

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 6 April 2017 at 16:15, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: > >> Per the SCRAM RFC, it is the server who advertises and the client who >> picks. > > Yes, but what does the RFC say about how to handle

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Collect and use multi-column dependency stats

At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:10:48 +1200, David Rowley wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan

> > That echoes my perception - so let's move this to the next CF? It's not > like this patch has been pending for very long. > sure Regards Pavel > > - Andres >

Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.

On 06/04/17 03:51, Noah Misch wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: Regarding this feature, there are some loose ends. We

Re: [HACKERS] Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:48:56AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:49:58PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> >> Regarding this

Re: [HACKERS] Implementation of SASLprep for SCRAM-SHA-256

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:33 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Attached is a new version. Notable changes since yesterday: > > * Implemented the rest of the SASLPrep, mapping some characters to spaces, > leaving out others, and checking for prohibited characters and bidirectional >

Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan

2017-04-06 8:08 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule : > > > 2017-04-05 23:22 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane : > >> Andres Freund writes: >> > I'd like some input from other committers whether we want this. I'm >> > somewhat doubtful, but don't have

Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan

On 05/04/17 23:22, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: >> I'd like some input from other committers whether we want this. I'm >> somewhat doubtful, but don't have particularly strong feelings. > > I don't really want to expose the workings of the plancache at user level.

Re: [HACKERS] Interval for launching the table sync worker

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > I was thinking the same. > > At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:33:22 +0900, Masahiko Sawada > wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] Faster methods for getting SPI results (460% improvement)

On 6 April 2017 at 15:38, Craig Ringer wrote: > Notes on the docs aside, I am pretty happy with this and think it's > reasonable to proceed with it for Pg 10. Actually, I'm a bit hesitant about returning a static struct that you expect callers to copy and modify. But it

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE/ALTER ROLE PASSWORD ('value' USING 'method')

On 04/06/2017 08:33 AM, Noah Misch wrote: On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:10:59AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 2:30 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:17

  1   2   >