[HACKERS] TAP tests take a long time

I've complained about this before. Below are some timings from buildfarm member nightjar as I test out the new client code. This buildfarm run as you can see takes 33m32s, and the Tap tests take a combined 19m52s of that time. That seems quite an inordinate amount of time, when checking out the

Re: [HACKERS] Remove pg_stat_progress_vacuum from Table 28.2

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/04/07 0:56, Fujii Masao wrote: >> 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 >>>

Re: [HACKERS] max_sync_workers_per_subscription is missing in postgresql.conf

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Masahiko Sawada >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Petr Jelinek >>>

Re: [HACKERS] error handling in RegisterBackgroundWorker

On 4/10/17 23:22, Tom Lane wrote: > Personally I'd err on the side of "starting up degraded is better than > not starting at all". Or maybe we should invent a GUC to let DBAs > express their preference on that? If we defaulted allow_degraded to yes, then users wouldn't find that setting until

Re: [HACKERS] Merge join for GiST

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > FYI, I've implemented this algorithm for pgsphere. See following branch. > https://github.com/akorotkov/pgsphere/tree/experimental > It's implemented as crossmatch() function which takes as arguments names of

Re: [HACKERS] Range Merge Join v1

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:17 AM, Jeff Davis wrote: > Version 2 attached. Fixed a few issues, expanded tests, added docs. It looks like the CF app only listed my perf test script. Re-attaching rangejoin-v2.patch so that it appears in the CF app. Identical to other

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] ERROR: badly formatted node string "RESTRICTINFO...

Ashutosh Bapat writes: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > +* there is no need for EPQ recheck at a join (and Vars or Aggrefs in > +* the qual might not be available locally anyway). > I am not sure whether

Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Small issue in online devel documentation build

On 4/11/17 08:49, Magnus Hagander wrote: > At the risk of being proven wrong again, won't this affect tags in > the old documentation as well? And if so, is that something we actually > want? Right. New patch with more refined selectors attached. > It does? The output on my laptop for that

Re: [HACKERS] SUBSCRIPTIONS and pg_upgrade

Robert, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Generally speaking, we should be trying to move away from superuser-only > > anything, not introducing more of it. > > I totally agree, which is why I was rather

Re: [HACKERS] PostGIS Out-DB Raster Not Behaving As Expected

Hi Robert, Thanks, I have done so and the issue has been resolved. On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Osahon Oduware > wrote: > > I created an out-db raster using the following syntax: > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] PostGIS Out-DB Raster Not Behaving As Expected

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Osahon Oduware wrote: > I created an out-db raster using the following syntax: > > raster2pgsql -s {srid} -c -R -I -C -F -t auto {absolute_file_path} > public.{table} | psql -h {host} -p {port} -d {database} -U {user} > > The table was

Re: [HACKERS] SUBSCRIPTIONS and pg_upgrade

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Generally speaking, we should be trying to move away from superuser-only > anything, not introducing more of it. I totally agree, which is why I was rather surprised when you vigorously objected to my attempts to

Re: [HACKERS] Reversed sync check in pg_receivewal

Magnus Hagander writes: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think the patch is correct, but if there's any documentation of the >> walmethod APIs that would allow one to assert which side of the API got >> this wrong, I sure don't see

Re: [HACKERS] Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:56 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello Pavel, > > I think so some local expression evaluation could be - but it should not be >> placed in \if statement >> > > Why? > > \expr issupported :VERSION_NUM >= 1 >> > > Hmmm. Although I do not buy this,

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

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Alexey Kondratov wrote: > Yes, sure, I don't doubt it. The question was around step 4 in the following > possible algorithm: > > 1. Suppose we have to insert N records > 2. Start subtransaction with these N records > 3. Error is

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned tables and relfilenode

Amit Langote writes: > 2. DefineQueryRewrite() may try to scan a partitioned table in the case of > converting a table to view, where we must make sure that the table being > converted is empty. It's checked by scanning the heap, which we should > not do for a

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

Hi Ashutosh, On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Jeevan Ladhe > wrote: > > Hi Rahila, > > > > > > With your latest patch: > > > > Consider a case when a table is partitioned

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > Thank you all for the reviews, feedback, tests, criticism. And apologies > for keep pushing it till the last minute even though it was clear to me > quite some time back the patch is not going to make it. But if

Re: [HACKERS] Reversed sync check in pg_receivewal

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: > > Attached patch reverses the check, and adds a failure message. I'd > > appreciate a quick review in case I have the logic backwards in my > head... > > I think the patch is

Re: [HACKERS] Reversed sync check in pg_receivewal

Hi Magnus, > Attached patch reverses the check, and adds a failure message. I'd > appreciate a quick review in case I have the logic backwards in my head... Well, I can state that `make check-world` passes on my laptop and that code seems to be right. However documentation to WalWriteMethod

Re: [HACKERS] Reversed sync check in pg_receivewal

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > This bug seems to have snuck in there with the introduction of walmethods. > AFAICT we are testing the result of sync() backwards, so whenever a partial > segment exists for pg_receivewal, it will fail. It will then

Re: [HACKERS] Some thoughts about SCRAM implementation

On 11/04/17 15:18, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 04/11/2017 04:09 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: But I will conserve my remaining courage (thanks Michael!) credits for future threads ;) I have stated my opinion clearly, I will now go back to the client library. Once you're done

Re: [HACKERS] Reversed sync check in pg_receivewal

Magnus Hagander writes: > Attached patch reverses the check, and adds a failure message. I'd > appreciate a quick review in case I have the logic backwards in my head... I think the patch is correct, but if there's any documentation of the walmethod APIs that would allow one

Re: [HACKERS] dropping a partition may cause deadlock

On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Robert, > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open > item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not

Re: [HACKERS] Some thoughts about SCRAM implementation

On 04/11/2017 04:09 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: But I will conserve my remaining courage (thanks Michael!) credits for future threads ;) I have stated my opinion clearly, I will now go back to the client library. Once you're done with the client library, feel free to post a patch

Re: [HACKERS] pgrowlocks relkind check

Amit, * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: > The following commit added relkind checks to certain contrib modules so > that a more user-friendly error is produced if the wrong kind of relation > is passed to its functions: > > commit c08d82f38ebf763b79bd43ae34b7310ee47aaacd >

Re: [HACKERS] src/interfaces/libpq shipping nmake-related Makefiles

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 4:18 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Magnus Hagander writes: > > Are these votes for getting rid of both win32.mak and bcc32.mak? > > > >> PFA a

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump emits ALTER TABLE ONLY partitioned_table

Amit, * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: > On 2017/04/11 0:26, Robert Haas wrote: > > Children can have constraints (including NOT NULL constraints) which > > parents lack, and can have a different column order, but must have > > exactly the same column names and types. > >

Re: [HACKERS] Some thoughts about SCRAM implementation

On 11/04/17 15:03, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa > wrote: On 10/04/17 20:32, Andres Freund wrote: On 2017-04-10 20:28:27 +0200, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: On 10/04/17

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench --progress-timestamp no longer works correctly

Jeff Janes writes: > --progress-timestamp is supposed to make -P report a Unix Epoch time stamp, > for easy correlation with the entries in other log files (like the postgres > server log file using %n). > But that broke in this commit: > commit

Re: [HACKERS] Some thoughts about SCRAM implementation

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: > > > On 10/04/17 20:32, Andres Freund wrote: > >> On 2017-04-10 20:28:27 +0200, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: >> >>> >>> On 10/04/17 13:02, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >>> On 04/10/2017 12:39 PM, Álvaro

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned tables and relfilenode

Looking at the number of issues where we have to fix tests based on the relkind checks, I think, we have to consider creating macros as described in my reply to thread with subject " Allowing extended stats on foreign and partitioned tables". On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Amit Langote

Re: [HACKERS] Some thoughts about SCRAM implementation

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: > I know this is a lost battle. But please bear with me for a minute. I admire your courage. > But just a bit more is needed to make it really a big announcement and > provide real value to (I guess,

Re: [HACKERS] Some thoughts about SCRAM implementation

On 10/04/17 20:32, Andres Freund wrote: On 2017-04-10 20:28:27 +0200, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: On 10/04/17 13:02, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 04/10/2017 12:39 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: - I think channel binding support should be added. SCRAM brings security improvements

Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Small issue in online devel documentation build

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 4/8/17 12:50, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> What other problems do we have with pgweb that I can work on? > > > > Well, the

[HACKERS] Reversed sync check in pg_receivewal

This bug seems to have snuck in there with the introduction of walmethods. AFAICT we are testing the result of sync() backwards, so whenever a partial segment exists for pg_receivewal, it will fail. It will then unlink the file, so when it retries 5 seconds later it works. It also doesn't log the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby" GUC pseudo-variable.

On 11 April 2017 at 09:05, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Magnus Hagander >> wrote: >> > Based on that we seem to agree here, should we

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

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Jeevan Ladhe wrote: > Hi Rahila, > > > With your latest patch: > > Consider a case when a table is partitioned on a boolean key. > > Even when there are existing separate partitions for 'true' and > > 'false', still default partition

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] ERROR: badly formatted node string "RESTRICTINFO...

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> Apparently, postgres_fdw is trying to store RestrictInfos in the >> fdw_private field of a ForeignScan node. That won't do; those aren't >> supposed to be present in a finished plan tree, so there's no readfuncs.c

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade vs extension upgrades

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: > > After you've run pg_upgrade, you have to loop through all your databases > > and do an "ALTER EXTENSION abc UPDATE" once for each extension. > > > Is there a reason we

Re: [HACKERS] Host variables corresponding bytea type in ecpg

> > > I attach modified patch. > > Thank you, committed. > > I don't see a git push for this? Oops, should be there now. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael at xmpp dot meskes dot

Re: [HACKERS] Host variables corresponding bytea type in ecpg

Michael Meskes writes: >> I attach modified patch. > Thank you, committed. I don't see a git push for this? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench --progress-timestamp no longer works correctly

Noah Misch writes: > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:58:07AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: >> --progress-timestamp is supposed to make -P report a Unix Epoch time stamp, >> for easy correlation with the entries in other log files (like the postgres >> server log file using %n). >> >>

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

On 11/04/17 13:21, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 04/11/2017 01:39 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: The fact that you null terminate them (fine with me) doesn't change my reasoning. How do you separate multiple channel binding methods? And do you realize that you will be repeating the

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

On 04/11/2017 01:39 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: The fact that you null terminate them (fine with me) doesn't change my reasoning. How do you separate multiple channel binding methods? And do you realize that you will be repeating the channel binding methods without reason? A contrived

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump emits ALTER TABLE ONLY partitioned_table

On 2017/04/11 0:26, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> While I admit that I've not been paying close attention to the whole >> table partitioning business, I wonder whether we have any clearly written >> down specification about (a) how

Re: [HACKERS] Host variables corresponding bytea type in ecpg

> I attach modified patch. Thank you, committed. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael at xmpp dot meskes dot org VfL Borussia! Força Barça! SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL

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

On 11/04/17 12:23, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 04/11/2017 11:55 AM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: On 11/04/17 08:50, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Oh, I see. According to the SCRAM RFC, "tls-unique" is used by default. I don't see us implementing anything else any time soon. PostgreSQL

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

On 04/11/2017 11:55 AM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: On 11/04/17 08:50, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Oh, I see. According to the SCRAM RFC, "tls-unique" is used by default. I don't see us implementing anything else any time soon. PostgreSQL doesn't support any other "channel type" than TLS, and

[HACKERS] RENAME RULE doesn't work with partitioned tables

Just noticed that RangeVarCallbackForRenameRule() was not updated to handle partitioned tables, causing the following bug: create table parted_table (a int) partition by list (a); create table part partition of parted_table for values in (1); create rule parted_table_insert as on insert to

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] ERROR: badly formatted node string "RESTRICTINFO...

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> Apparently, postgres_fdw is trying to store RestrictInfos in the >> fdw_private field of a ForeignScan node. That won't do; those aren't >> supposed to be present in a finished plan tree, so there's no readfuncs.c

Re: [HACKERS] [sqlsmith] ERROR: badly formatted node string "RESTRICTINFO...

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> (BTW, I've not yet looked to see if this needs to be back-ported.) > > postgres_fdw will definitely include RestrictInfos in its fdw_private > list in 9.6. However, I've been unable to provoke a visible failure. >

[HACKERS] Build PostGIS In Windows Using --with-gdalconfig=FILE

Hi, I am using Windows 7 OS and I have installed a GDAL with support for MrSID format. I want to build my PostGIS with the *--with-gdalconfig=FILE* to point to this new GDAL. How do I accomplish this in a Windows OS?

[HACKERS] Build PostGIS With GDAL-config-file in Windows

Hi, I am using Windows 7 OS and I have installed a GDAL with support for MrSID format. I want to build my PostGIS with the GDAL-config-file to point to this new GDAL. How do I accomplish this in a Windows OS?

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

On 2017/04/08 3:33, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 2:12 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: On 2017/04/01 1:32, Jeff Janes wrote: On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Etsuro Fujita > wrote: Done.

Re: [HACKERS] Merge join for GiST

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Andrew Borodin wrote: > ==Spatial joins== > Scientific papers from the dawn of R-trees and multidimensional > indexes feature a lot of algorithms for spatial joins. > I.e. you have two sets of geometries s1 and s2, you need to produce > all

Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned tables and relfilenode

On 2017/04/03 11:39, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/04/01 5:29, Robert Haas wrote: >> Thanks for reviewing, and thanks to Maksim as well, and thanks to Amit >> for writing the patch. > > Thanks for committing. :) I noticed that I had missed a couple of places that would try to scan partitioned

[HACKERS] Function to control physical replication slot

Is there a particular reason we don't have a function to *set* the restart_lsn of a replication slot, other than to drop it and recreate it? Similarly, to create one with a fixed value for restart_lsn and not necessarily the one the machine is at right now? Basically I'm doing a small script

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw: support parameterized foreign joins

On 2017/04/07 22:54, Arthur Zakirov wrote: Marked the patch as "Ready for Commiter". But the patch should be commited only after the patch [1]. Thanks for reviewing! I'll continue to work on this for PG11. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

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

On 11/04/17 08:50, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 04/10/2017 11:03 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: Channel binding needs to specify actually three things: - The mechanism, which is indeed suffixed "-PLUS". - The channel binding name, which is described here:

Re: [HACKERS] Merge join for GiST

2017-04-10 20:38 GMT+05:00 Robert Haas : > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Andrew Borodin wrote: >> I think this idea is somewhat related to this patch [2], but as for >> now cannot describe how exactly GiST merge and Range Merge features >> relate. >

Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

Sorry, what I have just sent was broken. At Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:33:41 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote in <20170411.173341.257028732.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > At Tue, 11 Apr 2017 09:56:06 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro

Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

At Tue, 11 Apr 2017 09:56:06 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote in <20170411.095606.245908357.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > Hello, thank you for looking this. > > At Fri, 07 Apr 2017 20:38:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby" GUC pseudo-variable.

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Magnus Hagander > wrote: > > Based on that we seem to agree here, should we add this as an open item? > > Clearly if we want to change this, we should do so

[HACKERS] pgrowlocks relkind check

The following commit added relkind checks to certain contrib modules so that a more user-friendly error is produced if the wrong kind of relation is passed to its functions: commit c08d82f38ebf763b79bd43ae34b7310ee47aaacd Author: Stephen Frost Date: Thu Mar 9 16:34:25 2017

Re: [HACKERS] max_sync_workers_per_subscription is missing in postgresql.conf

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Petr Jelinek >> wrote: >>> On 10/04/17 07:16, Masahiko Sawada wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion

2017-04-11 9:07 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO : > > I think so implementation of simple expression evaluation should not be >> hard >> > > Indeed it is not hard, it is rather a matter of deciding what it should > do, and the syntax to do it. > > - really just - we can expect so any

Re: [HACKERS] Range Merge Join v1

Version 2 attached. Fixed a few issues, expanded tests, added docs. A simple performance test (script attached) shows about a 5X improvement when comparing against a nested loop with an inner index-only scan over a gist index. Even better, this doesn't require an index, so it will work even if

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

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Neha Khatri wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> 1. Forget BGW_NEVER_RESTART workers in >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion

I think so implementation of simple expression evaluation should not be hard Indeed it is not hard, it is rather a matter of deciding what it should do, and the syntax to do it. - really just - we can expect so any variable will be replaced by const in expression Num (<|>|=|<=|>=) Num

Re: [HACKERS] Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion

2017-04-11 8:56 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO : > > Hello Pavel, > > I think so some local expression evaluation could be - but it should not be >> placed in \if statement >> > > Why? > > \expr issupported :VERSION_NUM >= 1 >> > > Hmmm. Although I do not buy this, it could work

Re: [HACKERS] Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion

> > \else > \if :somevar > 1 and SERVER_NUM >= 10 > should be \if :somevar > 1 and :SERVER_NUM >= 10 > ... > \end > >

Re: [HACKERS] Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion

Hello Pavel, I think so some local expression evaluation could be - but it should not be placed in \if statement Why? \expr issupported :VERSION_NUM >= 1 Hmmm. Although I do not buy this, it could work as a replacement for \set which it seems cannot be upgraded because some people

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

On 04/10/2017 11:03 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote: Channel binding needs to specify actually three things: - The mechanism, which is indeed suffixed "-PLUS". - The channel binding name, which is described here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5056. Types are also IANA-registered (see

Re: [HACKERS] Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion

2017-04-11 8:17 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO : > > Hello Greg, > > SELECT some-boolean-expression AS okay \gset >>> \if :okay >>> >> >> Am I the only one who thinks that even if \if got the ability to >> evaluate arbitrary SQL queries I would probably still always write >>

Re: [HACKERS] recent deadlock regression test failures

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Thomas Munro writes: >>> Here's a pair of draft patches for review: > > Thanks. > >> Pushed with cosmetic

Re: [HACKERS] Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion

Hello Greg, SELECT some-boolean-expression AS okay \gset \if :okay Am I the only one who thinks that even if \if got the ability to evaluate arbitrary SQL queries I would probably still always write things as above? I think putting arbitrary SQL expressions (let alone queries) would

<    1   2