Re: [HACKERS] sketchy partcollation handling

On 6 June 2017 at 09:19, Robert Haas wrote: > > Thanks. Committed. > The changes to catalogs.sgml has introduced a double "the" in this part of the sentence "this contains the OID of the the collation". The other section already had the double "the".

Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> At the end, >>> everything has been rejected as Postgres enforces the use of the >>> newest one when doing the SSL handshake. >> >> TLS implementations, or TLS versions? What does the TLS version have >> to do with this issue? > > I reall

Re: [HACKERS] Extra Vietnamese unaccent rules

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:10:25AM +0900, Dang Minh Huong wrote: > > On Jun 4, 29 Heisei, at 00:48, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Shouldn't you use "or is_letter_with_marks()", instead of "or len(...) > > 1"? Your test might catch something that isn't based on a 'letter' > (according to is

Re: [HACKERS] Update comments in nodeModifyTable.c

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:45 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > While working on [1], I noticed that the comment in ExecModifyTable: > > * Foreign table updates have a wholerow attribute when the > * relation has an AFTER ROW trigger. > > is not 100% correct because a fore

Re: [HACKERS] Minor fix for EventCacheLookup()

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > It should return NIL when no entry is found in the cache, not NULL. > > Attached patch fixes that. I'm not sure how much value neatnik-ism has in cases like this, but committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The E

Re: [HACKERS] sketchy partcollation handling

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > I think we can call it a bug of StorePartitionKey(). I looked at the > similar code in index_create() (which actually I had originally looked at > for reference when writing the partitioning code in question) and looks > like it doesn't store

Re: [HACKERS] Extra Vietnamese unaccent rules

On Jun 4, 29 Heisei, at 00:48, Bruce Momjian wrote:On Sun, Jun  4, 2017 at 12:43:17AM +0900, Dang Minh Huong wrote:On May 30, 29 Heisei, at 00:22, Dang Minh Huong wrote:On May 29, 29 Heisei, at 10:47, Thomas Munro

Re: [HACKERS] question about replication docs

On 5/29/17 09:11, Dave Cramer wrote: > The following makes an explicit reference to the simple query protocol > being the only protocol allowed in walsender mode. It is my > understanding this is true for logical replication as well ?? It's the same thing (for this purpose). -- Peter Eisentraut

Re: [HACKERS] Use of non-restart-safe storage by temp_tablespaces

On 06.06.2017 14:31, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 04:39:50AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I was thinking that you could create the init fork for each unlogged table in a permanent tablespace (probably the default one for the database). FWIW I don't think calling these tablespace

Re: [HACKERS] Index created in BEFORE trigger not updated during INSERT

Tom Lane wrote: >> Andres Freund writes: >>> Hm, strategically sprinkled CheckTableNotInUse() might do the trick? > > Attached is a proposed patch that closes off this problem. I've tested > it to the extent that it blocks Albe's example and passes check-world. I tested it, and it works fine.

Re: [HACKERS] Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)?

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 09:05:03AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/6/17 08:29, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 06:00:54PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > >> Tom's point is, I think, that we'll want to stay pg_upgrade > >> compatible. So when we see a pg10 tuple and want to add a

Re: [HACKERS] inconsistent application_name use in logical workers

On 6/6/17 06:51, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 06/06/17 04:19, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> The logical replication code is supposed to use the subscription name as >> the fallback_application_name, but in some cases it uses the slot name, >> which could be different. See attached patch to correct this.

Re: [HACKERS] Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)?

On 6/6/17 08:29, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 06:00:54PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: >> Tom's point is, I think, that we'll want to stay pg_upgrade >> compatible. So when we see a pg10 tuple and want to add a new page >> with a new page header that has an epoch, but the whole page

Re: [HACKERS] Use of non-restart-safe storage by temp_tablespaces

On 6/6/17 03:39, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > FWIW I don't think calling these tablespaces "temporary" is the right > word. It's not the tablespaces that are temporary. The SQL standard meaning of temporary is that the content goes away. It is only in PostgreSQL that it also means that the object goe

Re: [HACKERS] Use of non-restart-safe storage by temp_tablespaces

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 04:39:50AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Andres Freund wrote: > > > FWIW, allowing UNLOGGED tables, rather than just TEMPORARY ones, > > increases the complexity of that project noticeably. For TEMPORARY you > > basically don't need to do much but to recreate the structur

Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256

Michael, * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Michael Paquier > > wrote: > >> It seems to me that any testing in this area won't fly high as long as > >> there is no way to enforce the list

Re: [HACKERS] Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)?

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 06:00:54PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 6 June 2017 at 12:38, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> In my mind the harder problem is where to find another 32 bits for the > >> new page header field. You could convert the hea

Re: [HACKERS] inconsistent application_name use in logical workers

On 06/06/17 04:19, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > The logical replication code is supposed to use the subscription name as > the fallback_application_name, but in some cases it uses the slot name, > which could be different. See attached patch to correct this. > Hmm, well the differentiation has a re

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > Many of these seem worse, like these ones: > > - * Quit if we've reached records for another database. Unless the > + * Quit if we've reached records of another database. Unless the > Why is it worse? I've always encountered us

Re: [HACKERS] Is ECPG's SET CONNECTION really not thread-aware?

Dear Tsunakawa-san, sorry for the late reply, I've been traveling all of last week and only just came back. >> What does this mean by "not thread-aware?" Does SET CONNECTION in one >> thread change the current connection in another thread? >> It doesn't look so, because the connection management

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.

Hi, I have been testing this feature for a while and below are the observations for few scenarios. *Observation:* scenario 1: If we set pg_prewarm.dump_interval = -1.0,we get an additional warning message in logfile and instead of ending the task of auto-dump it executes successfully. [centos@tes

Re: [HACKERS] Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)?

On 6 June 2017 at 12:38, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Ashutosh Bapat writes: >>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: Storing an epoch implies that rows can't have (xmin,xmax) different by more than one epoch. So if you're

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > Consider an example using the partition hierarchy: > > root (a int, b char, c int) partition by range (a) > > -> level1 from (1) to (10) partition by list (b) > > -> level2 in ('a') parition by range (c) > > -> leaf from (1) to (

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

On 2017/06/06 17:50, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:03 PM, amul sul wrote: >> May I ask you, how you sure about 8 is an unfit value for t1 relation? >> And what if the value other than 8, for e.g. 7? > > Well, First I created t1 as a leaf relation like below, and I tested > insert

Re: [HACKERS] Get stuck when dropping a subscription during synchronizing table

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/2/17 14:52, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 5/24/17 15:14, Petr Jelinek wrote: >>> All the locking works just fine the way it is in master. The issue with >>> deadlock with apply comes from the wrong handling of the SIGTERM in the >>> ap

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:03 PM, amul sul wrote: > May I ask you, how you sure about 8 is an unfit value for t1 relation? > And what if the value other than 8, for e.g. 7? Well, First I created t1 as a leaf relation like below, and I tested insert into t1 with value 8 and it was violating the part

[HACKERS] Fix tab-completion of ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET PUBLICATION

Hi, Attached patch for $subject. With this patch, ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET PUBLICATION [TAB] completes with "REFRESH" and "SKIP REFRESH". Specifying either REFRESH or SKIP REFRESH is mandatory after ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET PUBLICATION, so i think it's good to add this. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawad

Re: [HACKERS] Use of non-restart-safe storage by temp_tablespaces

Andres Freund wrote: > FWIW, allowing UNLOGGED tables, rather than just TEMPORARY ones, > increases the complexity of that project noticeably. For TEMPORARY you > basically don't need to do much but to recreate the structure inside the > tablespace at start - fairly simple. But for UNLOGGED you

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

Hi Dilip, Thanks for review. On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:59 AM, amul sul wrote: >> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:23 PM, amul sul wrote: >>> >>> Updated patch attached. Thanks a lot for review. >>> >> Minor fix in the document, PFA. > > Patch need

<    1   2