Re: [HACKERS] strcmp() tie-breaker for identical ICU-collated strings

On 2 June 2017 at 23:52, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Amit Khandekar > wrote: >> Ok. I was thinking we are doing the tie-breaker because specifically >> strcoll_l() was unexpectedly returning 0 for some cases. Now I get it, >> that we do that to be compatible with te

[HACKERS] Re: BUG #14680: startup process on standby encounter a deadlock of TwoPhaseStateLock when redo 2PC xlog

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send > a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status > update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership: > https://www.postgresql.org/mes

[HACKERS] Re: BUG #14680: startup process on standby encounter a deadlock of TwoPhaseStateLock when redo 2PC xlog

On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:24:30PM +, Noah Misch wrote: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 01:07:53AM -0700, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Michael Paquier > > wrote: > > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> wangchuant...@huawei.com writes: > > >>> st

Re: [HACKERS] A bug in mapping attributes in ATExecAttachPartition()

On 2017/06/08 18:43, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/06/08 1:44, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Ashutosh Bapat >> wrote: >>> In ATExecAttachPartition() there's following code >>> >>> 13715 partnatts = get_partition_natts(key); >>> 13716 for (i = 0; i < partnatt

[HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #14682: row level security not work with partitioned table

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 08:45:20AM -0700, Joe Conway wrote: > On 06/07/2017 06:49 AM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: > > I ended up narrowing it down to 4 tables (one parent and 3 partitions) > > in order to demonstrate policy sorting and order of RLS/partition > > constraint checking. It should be much mor

Re: [HACKERS] Coverage improvements of src/bin/pg_basebackup and pg_receivewal --endpos

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > While it is possible to tackle some of those issues independently, > like pg_basebackup stuff, it seems to me that it would be helpful to > make the tests more deterministic by having an --endpos option for > pg_receivewal, similarly to what

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is coming for table which is already removed

On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 03:21:34PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/3/17 01:04, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:15:50PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> On 5/30/17 13:25, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > >>> I think this cause is that the relation status entry could be deleted > >>

Re: [HACKERS] walsender & parallelism

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:54:57PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 11:06:29PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2017-06-02 22:12:46 -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 11:27:55PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > > On 5/31/17 23:54, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

[HACKERS] How to refer to resource files from UDFs written in C

Hi hackers, I am trying to extend PostgreSQL by adding UDT and UDF for a custom use case and I am using C language extensions to do that. However, I have a requirement of reading a text file from one of the C functions. The compiled *.so files are placed in the "pg_config --pkglibdir" directory a

Re: [HACKERS] A bug in mapping attributes in ATExecAttachPartition()

On 2017/06/08 19:25, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Amit Langote >>> I think this code could be removed entirely in light of commit >>> 3ec76ff1f2cf52e9b900349957b42d28128b7bc7. >> >> I am assuming you think that because now we emit IS NOT NULL constraint >> internally for

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

I have merged Rafia's patch for cosmetic changes. I have also fixed some of the changes you have recommended over that. But kept few as it is since Rafia's opinion was needed on that. On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > My experience is the opposite. If I Google "from another da

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

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Neha Sharma wrote: > 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 en

[HACKERS] Transition tables vs ON CONFLICT

[Moving this to its own thread, for earlier discussion see the transition-tables-vs-wCTE thread[1].] On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > I suppose you'll need two tuplestores for the ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE > case -- one for updated tuples, and the other for inserted tuples.

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > I spent a couple of hours drafting a proof-of-concept to see if my > hunch was right. It seems to work correctly so far and isn't huge > (but certainly needs more testing and work): > > 6 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 109 deletions(-) [A

Re: [HACKERS] transition table behavior with inheritance appears broken (was: Declarative partitioning - another take)

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/05/20 9:01, Thomas Munro wrote: >> Sent too soon. Several variables should also be renamed to make clear >> they refer to the transition capture state in effect, instead of vague >> names like 'transitions'. Sorry for the version chu

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-06-08 23:05:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> ... The first >> attached patch does it that way, and it seems nice and clean, but I ran >> into a complete dead end while trying to extend it to handle related cases >> such as disallowing SRF-inside-aggregate or nested SRFs

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

On 7 June 2017 at 20:19, Amit Khandekar wrote: > On 7 June 2017 at 16:42, Amit Khandekar wrote: >> The column bitmap set returned by GetUpdatedColumns() refer to >> attribute numbers w.r.t. to the root partition. And the >> mstate->resultRelInfo[] have attnos w.r.t. to the leaf partitions. So >>

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity

Hi, On 2017-06-08 23:05:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I spent some time experimenting with this, and immediately found out > that information_schema.user_mapping_options contains an instance of the > problematic usage :-(. However, that view also turns out to be a poster > child for why our old SRF

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity

I wrote: > As to *how* to throw an error, I think it should be possible to teach > parse analysis to detect such cases, with something like the > ParseExprKind mechanism that could be checked to see if we're inside > a subexpression that restricts what's allowed. There are some other > checks like

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GSOC 17] Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions

Thank you very much! I follow your advice and here is the result. SerializableXactHashLock 73 predicate_lock_manager 605 WALWriteLock 3 SerializableFinishedListLock 665 There are more than 90 events each time. SerializableXactHashLock/SerializableFinishedListLock are both used in SSI. I think

Re: [HACKERS] walsender termination error messages worse in v10

Petr Jelinek wrote: > It took me a while to understand why walreceiver does this originally, > but it did make sense to me once I understood the [...], so I did it > the same way. In other words, the coding pattern needs a comment in both places. -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2nd

[HACKERS] Fix comment in shm_mq.c

Hi, Attached patch for $subject. /* * Set sender's latch, unless queue is detached. */ static shm_mq_result shm_mq_notify_receiver(volatile shm_mq *mq) I think shm_mq_notify_receiver() sets receiver's latch actually, not sender's latch. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPH

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication busy-waiting on a lock

On 09/06/17 01:06, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017-06-03 04:50:00 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> One thing I don't like is the GetLastLocalTransactionId() that I had to >> add because we clear the proc->lxid before we get to AtEOXact_Snapshot() >> but I don't have better solution there. > >

Re: [HACKERS] walsender termination error messages worse in v10

On 08/06/17 23:57, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-06-03 00:55:22 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> On 02/06/17 23:45, Andres Freund wrote: >>> Hi Petr, >>> >>> On 2017-06-02 22:57:37 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 02/06/17 20:51, Andres Freund wrote: > I don't understand why the new block is th

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> 1. Keep the current behaviour. [...] >> >> 2. Make a code change that would split the 'new table' tuplestore in >> two: an insert tuplestore and an update tuplestore (for new images;

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication busy-waiting on a lock

Hi, On 2017-06-03 04:50:00 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > One thing I don't like is the GetLastLocalTransactionId() that I had to > add because we clear the proc->lxid before we get to AtEOXact_Snapshot() > but I don't have better solution there. I dislike that quite a bit - how about we instead ju

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

On 2017-06-07 11:51:12 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 07/06/17 03:00, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2017-06-06 19:36:13 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > > > >> As a side note, we are starting to have several IsSomeTypeOfProcess > >> functions for these kind of things. I wonder if bgworker infrastructur

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> Also, ISTM that the code within ENRMetadataGetTupDesc() probably >> requires more explanation, resource management wise. Why so? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't see what's

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

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Alex K wrote: > (1) One of my mentors--Alvaro Herrera--suggested me to have a look on the > UPSERT. > It may be a good point to be able to achieve the same functionality > as during the ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING, when COPY actually inserts tuples > and errors handlin

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Andrew Gierth wrote: >> "Robert" == Robert Haas writes: > Robert> unless some other committer volunteers. (Of course, anyone > Robert> could step in to do the work, as Thomas already has to a > Robert> considerable degree, but without a committer involved i

Re: [HACKERS] walsender termination error messages worse in v10

On 2017-06-03 00:55:22 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 02/06/17 23:45, Andres Freund wrote: > > Hi Petr, > > > > On 2017-06-02 22:57:37 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > >> On 02/06/17 20:51, Andres Freund wrote: > >>> I don't understand why the new block is there, nor does the commit > >>> message exp

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

Robert Haas writes: > I don't really like either option, because, on the one hand, this is a > pretty invasive thing to go rip out -- maybe we don't have to rip out > the entire patch series, but just some of the later patches? -- and on > the other hand, keeping it in the tree will require work,

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Andrew Gierth wrote: >> "Thomas" == Thomas Munro writes: > > Thomas> So, afterTriggers.query_stack is used to handle the reentrancy > Thomas> that results from triggers running further statements that > Thomas> might fire triggers. It isn't used for dealing

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

> "Robert" == Robert Haas writes: Robert> unless some other committer volunteers. (Of course, anyone Robert> could step in to do the work, as Thomas already has to a Robert> considerable degree, but without a committer involved it Robert> doesn't fix the problem.) I can probably take th

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

> "Thomas" == Thomas Munro writes: Thomas> So, afterTriggers.query_stack is used to handle the reentrancy Thomas> that results from triggers running further statements that Thomas> might fire triggers. It isn't used for dealing with extra Thomas> ModifyTable nodes that can appear in a pl

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I am not sure that I entirely agree with you on these points, but I > don't want to debate it further and especially not on a public mailing > list. Fair enough. > I'm going to spend some time over the next ~24 hours studying > this thread and

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > It does seem like Kevin could have done better there. However, I think > that Kevin was taking responsibility for the situation, and that it > wasn't accurate to suggest he blamed others. I thought his account of > the constraints that he op

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb_to_tsvector should be immutable

On 06/08/2017 03:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan writes: >> On 06/08/2017 02:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Yeah, if the (regconfig,text) one is considered immutable, I don't see >>> why the other two aren't. The justification for the other three being >>> only stable is that they depend on

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb_to_tsvector should be immutable

Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 06/08/2017 02:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Yeah, if the (regconfig,text) one is considered immutable, I don't see >> why the other two aren't. The justification for the other three being >> only stable is that they depend on default_text_search_config. > Yes, agreed it s

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb_to_tsvector should be immutable

On 06/08/2017 02:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus writes: >> select proname, prosrc, proargtypes, provolatile from pg_proc where >> proname = 'to_tsvector'; > Slightly more readable version: > > regression=# select oid::regprocedure, provolatile, proparallel from pg_proc > where proname = '

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I understood the same. However, he didn't review or commit any of the > bug fix patches that Thomas posted in May, or even respond to the > mailing list threads. I eventually reviewed and committed them to > avoid having the feature reverted;

Re: [HACKERS] strange error message from slave when connection to master cannot be established

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2017-06-08 17:19 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas : >> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Pavel Stehule >> wrote: >> > I got strange error message - false message - max connection is less on >> > slave than on master, although these numbers was same. The

Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts

pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org wrote on 06/07/2017 04:06:57 PM: ... > > > > Did you intend to attach a patch? > Yes I do -- tomorrow or Thursday -- needs a little cleaning up ... meant Friday > > > > Sokolov Yura has a patch which, to me, looks good for pgbench rw > > > performance. Does n

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> More generally, I don't think there's ever a >> time when it's OK to commit a patch that you're not willing to put at >> least some effort into fixing up afterwards. > > Kevin said "It

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb_to_tsvector should be immutable

Josh Berkus writes: > select proname, prosrc, proargtypes, provolatile from pg_proc where > proname = 'to_tsvector'; Slightly more readable version: regression=# select oid::regprocedure, provolatile, proparallel from pg_proc where proname = 'to_tsvector'; oid | provol

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 11:05:43AM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > More generally, I don't think there's ever a > > time when it's OK to commit a patch that you're not willing to put at > > least some effort into fixing up afterwards. > > Ke

[HACKERS] jsonb_to_tsvector should be immutable

Wanted to pull this out of my general report, because nobody seems to have seen it: P3: apparently jsonb_to_tsvector with lang parameter isn't immutable? This means that it can't be used for indexing: libdata=# create index bookdata_fts on bookdata using gin (( to_tsvector('english',bookdata)));

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > More generally, I don't think there's ever a > time when it's OK to commit a patch that you're not willing to put at > least some effort into fixing up afterwards. Kevin said "It has become clear that the scope of problems being found now exce

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 06/08/2017 08:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> I freely admit I encouraged you to commit this. I did not imagine >> that would be followed immediately by abdicating all responsibility >> for it. My mistake, I guess. > > Robert, chill

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench tap tests & minor fixes

Hello Nikolay, I did some investigation: The code there really suppose that there is always \n at the end of the line, and truncates the line. It is done in /* Get location of the ending newline */ end_offset = expr_scanner_offset(sstate) - 1; just two lines above the code we are discussing.

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity

"'Andres Freund'" writes: > On 2017-06-08 11:57:49 -0400, Regina Obe wrote: >> My main concern in these cases is the short-circuiting not happening. > Note there's also no short-circuiting e.g. for aggregates inside case > either. Well, depends. If const-folding manages to get rid of the aggreg

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On 06/08/2017 08:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote: I freely admit I encouraged you to commit this. I did not imagine that would be followed immediately by abdicating all responsibility for it. My mistake, I guess. Robert, chill out. Kevin offered to revert. It's perhaps not the best way forward - I'

Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > It has become clear that the scope of problems being found now > exceed what I can be sure of being able to fix in time to make for a > stable release, in spite of the heroic efforts Thomas has been > putting in. I had hoped to get this into

Re: [HACKERS] strange error message from slave when connection to master cannot be established

2017-06-08 17:19 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas : > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > I got strange error message - false message - max connection is less on > > slave than on master, although these numbers was same. The issue was in > > wrong connection string in recovery conf a

Re: [HACKERS] Notes on testing Postgres 10b1

On 06/07/2017 06:37 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/7/17 21:19, Josh Berkus wrote: >> The user's first thought is going to be a network issue, or a bug, or >> some other problem, not a missing PK. Yeah, they can find that >> information in the logs, but only if they think to look for it in the

Re: [HACKERS] Notes on testing Postgres 10b1

On 06/07/2017 07:01 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 08/06/17 03:50, Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 06/07/2017 06:25 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: >>> On 08/06/17 03:19, Josh Berkus wrote: Peter and Petr: On 06/07/2017 05:24 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/7/17 01:01, Josh Berkus wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:46 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> As far as I understand, it is to ensure that for deleted rows, nothing >>> more needs to be done. For example, see the below check in

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity

On 2017-06-08 11:57:49 -0400, Regina Obe wrote: > My main concern in these cases is the short-circuiting not happening. Note there's also no short-circuiting e.g. for aggregates inside case either. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes t

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

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:47 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> + errmsg("default partition contains row(s) >> that would overlap with partition being created"))); >> >> It doesn't really sound right to talk about rows overl

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

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 1:59 AM, amul sul wrote: > But Ashutosh's suggestion make sense, we might have constraints other > than that partitioning constraint on default partition. If those > constraints refutes the new partition's constraints, we should skip > the scan. Right. If the user adds a

Re: [HACKERS] Long binded parameter value in the postgres log

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Nikitin Nikolay wrote: > Hi! > > > > We insert many rows with long text and bytea (about 500 MB) values. In the > postgres config we set log_min_duration_statement to 120 seconds. > > If this statements work more 120 seconds then they will be written into the > post

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity

> But this line of thinking does strengthen my feeling that throwing an error is the right thing to do for the moment. If we allow v10 to accept such cases but do something different from what we used to, that > will greatly complicate any future attempt to try to restore the old behavior. >

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > Whatever you put in the hostaddr field - or any field other than host > and port - is one entry. There is no notion of a list of entries in > any other field, and no attempt to split any other field on a comma or > any other symbol. > ​[...]​

Re: [HACKERS] strange error message from slave when connection to master cannot be established

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > I got strange error message - false message - max connection is less on > slave than on master, although these numbers was same. The issue was in > wrong connection string in recovery conf and slave cannot to check master > and used some defa

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> It doesn't seem like a problem to me if somebody else wants to extend >> it to hostaddr, though. Whether that change belongs in v10 or v11 is >> debatable. I would object to adding this as an open item with me as >> the o

Re: [HACKERS] Does pg_upgrade really support "make installcheck"?

Andrew Dunstan writes: > The whole thing is explained here: > > And since then the buildfarm has acquired a separate optional module > that tests pg_upgrade. It's enabled by default in the sample config file. > So it's not li

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

Robert Haas writes: > It doesn't seem like a problem to me if somebody else wants to extend > it to hostaddr, though. Whether that change belongs in v10 or v11 is > debatable. I would object to adding this as an open item with me as > the owner because doesn't seem to me to be a must-fix issue,

Re: [HACKERS] Does pg_upgrade really support "make installcheck"?

On 06/08/2017 03:04 AM, Neha Khatri wrote: > On 6/7/17, Tom Lane wrote: >> src/bin/pg_upgrade/TESTING claims (much further down in the file >> than I'd like): >> >> The shell script test.sh in this directory performs more or less this >> procedure. You can invoke it by running >>

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > So, this is all quite confusing. I think we should support a list of > hostaddrs, to go with the list of hostnames. It seems like a strange > omission. Looking at the archives, it was mentioned a few times when this > was developed and re

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Improve bitmap costing for lossy pages

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote: Thanks for the feedback and sorry for the delayed response. > You might need to adjust effective_cache_size. You are right. But, effective_cache_size will have the impact on the number of pages_fetched when it's used as parameterized path (i.e

Re: [HACKERS] Broken hint bits (freeze)

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Dmitriy Sarafannikov wrote: > >> Why didn't rsync made the copies on master and replica same? > > Because rsync was running with —size-only flag. > IIUC the situation, the new WAL and updated pg_control file has been copied, but not updated data files due to which

Re: [HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

Heikki Linnakangas writes: > So, this is all quite confusing. I think we should support a list of > hostaddrs, to go with the list of hostnames. It seems like a strange > omission. +1, if it's not too large a patch. It could be argued that this is a new feature and should wait for v11, but the

Re: [HACKERS] Broken hint bits (freeze)

> Why didn't rsync made the copies on master and replica same? Because rsync was running with —size-only flag. > I haven't looked in detail, but it sounds slightly risky proposition > to manipulate the tuples by writing C functions of the form you have > in your code. I would have preferred som

Re: [HACKERS] Broken hint bits (freeze)

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Dmitriy Sarafannikov wrote: > Thanks for all. > > We found the source of the problem. It was mistake in upgrade to 9.6. > > We upgrade replica with rsync as it is in the documentation: > rsync --verbose --relative --archive --hard-links --size-only old_pgdata > new

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Aggregation support for aggregate functions that use transitions not implemented for array_agg

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:23 PM, David Fetter wrote: >> I'd bet on lack of tuits. > > I expect that was part of it. Another thing to consider is that, for > numeric aggregates, the transition values don't generally get larger > as you aggregat

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Crash observed during the start of the Postgres process

Hi Tom Lane, After removing our patch to change FATAL to LOG, we are not observing the crash now. Thank you for your support. We were struck with this issue for a while. Regards, Sandhya -Original Message- From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:08 PM

[HACKERS] Long binded parameter value in the postgres log

Hi! We insert many rows with long text and bytea (about 500 MB) values. In the postgres config we set log_min_duration_statement to 120 seconds. If this statements work more 120 seconds then they will be written into the postgres log with parameter values. As a result, the postgres log increases

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:46 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> As far as I understand, it is to ensure that for deleted rows, nothing >> more needs to be done. For example, see the below check in >> ExecUpdate/ExecDelete. >> if (!ItemPointerEquals(tupl

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

Thanks Ashutosh, On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Jeevan Ladhe > > wrote: > > > >> > >>> > >>> The code in check_default_allows_bound() to check

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

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Jeevan Ladhe > wrote: > >> >>> >>> The code in check_default_allows_bound() to check whether the default >>> partition >>> has any rows that would fit new partition looks quite similar to the code >>> in >>> A

Re: [HACKERS] A bug in mapping attributes in ATExecAttachPartition()

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/06/08 1:44, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Ashutosh Bapat >> wrote: >>> In ATExecAttachPartition() there's following code >>> >>> 13715 partnatts = get_partition_natts(key); >>> 13716 for (i = 0;

Re: [HACKERS] A bug in mapping attributes in ATExecAttachPartition()

On 2017/06/08 1:44, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> In ATExecAttachPartition() there's following code >> >> 13715 partnatts = get_partition_natts(key); >> 13716 for (i = 0; i < partnatts; i++) >> 13717 { >> 13718 A

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

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Jeevan Ladhe wrote: > >> >> The code in check_default_allows_bound() to check whether the default >> partition >> has any rows that would fit new partition looks quite similar to the code >> in >> ATExecAttachPartition() checking whether all rows in the table being

[HACKERS] List of hostaddrs not supported

While testing libpq and GSS the other day, I was surprised by the behavior of the host and hostaddr libpq options, if you specify a list of hostnames. I did this this, and it took me quite a while to figure out what was going on: $ psql "dbname=postgres hostaddr=::1 host=localhost,localhos

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is coming for table which is already removed

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 5/30/17 13:25, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> I think this cause is that the relation status entry could be deleted >> by ALTER SUBSCRIPTION REFRESH before corresponding table sync worker >> starting. Attached patch fixes issues reported on t

Re: [HACKERS] Does pg_upgrade really support "make installcheck"?

On 6/7/17, Tom Lane wrote: > src/bin/pg_upgrade/TESTING claims (much further down in the file > than I'd like): > > The shell script test.sh in this directory performs more or less this > procedure. You can invoke it by running > make check > or by running >