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

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Jeevan Ladhe > wrote: > > I have addressed following comments in V25 patch[1]. > > Committed 0001. Since that code seems to be changing about every 10 >

Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Bossart, Nathan wrote: >> I’ve rebased this patch with master to create v7, which is attached. > > Thanks for the rebased patch. I am switching into review

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

On 2017/08/18 4:54, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> [2] had a patch with some changes to the original patch you posted. I >> didn't describe those changes in my mail, since they rearranged the >> comments. Those

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Amit Khandekar wrote: > > I think in the final changes after applying all 3 patches, the > redundant tuple slot is no longer present. But ... >> We don't really need the PartitionDispatch objects either, >> except for the OIDs they

[HACKERS] Re: Stats for triggers on partitioned tables not shown in EXPLAIN ANALYZE

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 05:14:25PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/08/15 21:20, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > > I noticed that runtime stats for BEFORE ROW INSERT triggers on leaf > > partitions of partitioned tables aren't reported in EXPLAIN ANALYZE. Here > > is an example: > > So here is a > >

Re: [HACKERS] Subscription code improvements

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> On 8/8/17 05:58, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >>> Are you planning to work on remaining patches 0005 and 0006 that >>>

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

On 18 August 2017 at 01:24, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> [2] had a patch with some changes to the original patch you posted. I >> didn't describe those changes in my mail, since they

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Amit Langote wrote > >>> 0002: Teach expand_inherited_rtentry to use partition bound order >> >> 0004 in [1] expands a multi-level partition hierarchy into similar >> inheritance hierarchy. That patch doesn't need all OIDs in one

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

Hi Ashutosh, On 2017/08/17 21:39, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> >> Attached rest of the patches. 0001 has changes per Ashutosh's review >> comments [2]: >> >> 0001: Relieve RelationGetPartitionDispatchInfo() of

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

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:06 AM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > I have attempted a very simple POC with this approach just to see how > many lossy pages we can save if we lossify all the pages falling in > the same chunk first, before moving to the next page. I have taken > some

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Functions

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Attached is a quick sketch of how this could perhaps be done (ignoring > for the moment the relatively-boring opclass pushups). Here it is with some relatively-boring opclass pushups added. I just did the int4 bit; the

Re: [HACKERS] Re: ICU collation variant keywords and pg_collation entries (Was: [BUGS] Crash report for some ICU-52 (debian8) COLLATE and work_mem values)

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 09:22:07PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/14/17 12:23, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 8/13/17 15:39, 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

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

On 2017/08/18 8:16, Michael Paquier wrote: On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Robert Haas writes: On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: I rebased the patch to HEAD. PFA a new version of

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Push limit to sort through a subquery

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Douglas Doole wrote: > I completely agree. The further a limit can be pushed down, the better. > > The patch looks good to me. > It seems like a somewhat ad-hoc approach; it supposes that we can take any query produced by

Re: [HACKERS] Re: ICU collation variant keywords and pg_collation entries (Was: [BUGS] Crash report for some ICU-52 (debian8) COLLATE and work_mem values)

On 8/14/17 12:23, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/13/17 15:39, 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

Re: [HACKERS] Inadequate infrastructure for NextValueExpr

> "Thomas" == Thomas Munro writes: >> [...] >> T_NamedTuplestoreScan can be produced by outfuncs.c with tagname >> NAMEDTUPLESTORESCAN but that tagname is not recognized by readfuncs.c >> [...] >> >> That revealed a defect in commit >>

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Etsuro Fujita >> wrote: >>> I rebased the patch to HEAD. PFA a new version of the patch. > >> Tom, you were

Re: [HACKERS] Inadequate infrastructure for NextValueExpr

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > [...] > T_NamedTuplestoreScan can be produced by outfuncs.c with tagname > NAMEDTUPLESTORESCAN but that tagname is not recognized by readfuncs.c > [...] > > That revealed a defect in commit >

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90

I wrote: > Ah-hah, I see my dromedary box is one of the ones failing, so I'll > have a look there. I can't reproduce it on my other machines. OK, so this is a whole lot more broken than I thought :-(. Bear in mind that the plan for this (omitting uninteresting detail) is Nested Loop Left Join

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM salt length

On 08/17/2017 01:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/17/17 12:10, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> On 08/17/2017 05:23 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> On 8/17/17 09:21, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: The RFC doesn't say anything about salt length, but the one example in it uses a 16 byte string

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM salt length

On 8/17/17 12:10, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 08/17/2017 05:23 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 8/17/17 09:21, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >>> The RFC doesn't say anything about salt >>> length, but the one example in it uses a 16 byte string as the salt. >>> That's more or less equal to the

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > [2] had a patch with some changes to the original patch you posted. I > didn't describe those changes in my mail, since they rearranged the > comments. Those changes are not part of this patch and you

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

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Jeevan Ladhe wrote: > I have addressed following comments in V25 patch[1]. Committed 0001. Since that code seems to be changing about every 10 minutes, it seems best to get this refactoring out of the way before it changes again.

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Etsuro Fujita > wrote: >> I rebased the patch to HEAD. PFA a new version of the patch. > Tom, you were instrumental in identifying what was going wrong here > initially. Any chance you'd

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90

Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Nope, spoke too soon. See buildfarm. > Whoa, that's not good. Ah-hah, I see my dromedary box is one of the ones failing, so I'll have a look there. I can't reproduce it on my

[HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior

As discussed in [1] our low-level backup documentation does not quite match the actual behavior of the functions on primary vs. standby. Since it appears we have decided that the remaining behavioral differences after 52f8a59dd953c68 are bugs in the documentation, the attached is a first pass at

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > On 2017/04/04 18:01, Etsuro Fujita wrote: >> I rebased the patch also. Please find attached an updated version of the >> patch. > > I rebased the patch to HEAD. PFA a new version of the patch. Tom, you were

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> Pushed, with minor tidying of the test case. I think we can now >> close this open item. > > Nope, spoke too soon. See buildfarm. > > (Man, am I glad I insisted on a test case.) Whoa, that's not good. --

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90

I wrote: > Pushed, with minor tidying of the test case. I think we can now > close this open item. Nope, spoke too soon. See buildfarm. (Man, am I glad I insisted on a test case.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] distinct estimate of a hard-coded VALUES list

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Janes writes: > > This patch still applies, and I think the argument for it is still valid. > > So I'm going to make a commit-fest entry for it. Is there additional > > evidence we should gather?

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90

Amit Kapila writes: >> This will be fixed by the patch [1] (execrescan_gathermerge_v2.patch) >> I posted sometime back. The test case is slightly different, but may >> I can re post the patch with your test case. > I have kept the fix as it is but changed the test to

Re: [HACKERS] pl/perl extension fails on Windows

I wrote: > Short of declaring this version of Perl unsupported, the only answer > I can think of is to put a kluge into the MSVC build scripts along > the lines of "if it's 32-bit Windows, and the Perl version is before X, > assume we need _USE_32BIT_TIME_T even if $Config{ccflags} doesn't > say

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM salt length

On 08/17/2017 05:23 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 8/17/17 09:21, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: The RFC doesn't say anything about salt length, but the one example in it uses a 16 byte string as the salt. That's more or less equal to the current default of 12 raw bytes, after base64-encoding. The

Re: [HACKERS] Extra Vietnamese unaccent rules

Thanks! On 2017/08/17 11:56, Tom Lane wrote: Michael Paquier writes: On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote: I'm not really qualified to review the Python coding style, but I did fix a typo in a comment. No pythonist here, but a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Push limit to sort through a subquery

I completely agree. The further a limit can be pushed down, the better. The patch looks good to me. On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:27 AM Konstantin Knizhnik < k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > > > On 29.04.2017 00:13, Douglas Doole wrote: > > If you add this to the commitfest app, more people

Re: [HACKERS] pl/perl extension fails on Windows

I wrote: > Dave Page writes: >> C:\Perl\bin>perl -MConfig -e "print $Config{ccflags}" >> -nologo -GF -W3 -MD -Zi -DNDEBUG -O1 -DWIN32 -D_CONSOLE -DNO_STRICT >> -DHAVE_DES_FCRYPT -DNO_HASH_SEED -DUSE_SITECUSTOMIZE >> -DPERL_IMPLICIT_CONTEXT -DPERL_IMPLICIT_SYS -DUSE_PERLIO >>

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Push limit to sort through a subquery

On 29.04.2017 00:13, Douglas Doole wrote: If you add this to the commitfest app, more people might look at it when the next commitfest opens. I have added it. https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/1119/ Also, it might help if you can provide a query/ies with numbers where

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Aggregation push-down

Antonin Houska wrote: > Antonin Houska wrote: > > > This is a new version of the patch I presented in [1]. > > Rebased. > > cat .git/refs/heads/master > b9a3ef55b253d885081c2d0e9dc45802cab71c7b This is another version of the patch. Besides other

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90

Amit Kapila writes: > I think the another patch posted above to add a new guc for > enable_gather is still relevant and important. FWIW, I'm pretty much -1 on that. I don't see that it has any real-world use; somebody who wants to turn that off would likely really want

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Amit Kapila writes: >>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I should think it

Re: [HACKERS] pl/perl extension fails on Windows

Dave Page writes: > Didn't realise I needed the -MConfig bit (told you my perl-fu was weak :-) > ): > C:\Perl\bin>perl -MConfig -e "print $Config{ccflags}" > -nologo -GF -W3 -MD -Zi -DNDEBUG -O1 -DWIN32 -D_CONSOLE -DNO_STRICT > -DHAVE_DES_FCRYPT -DNO_HASH_SEED

Re: [HACKERS] Add support for tuple routing to foreign partitions

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 05:27:05PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > On 2017/07/11 6:56, Robert Haas wrote: > >On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Etsuro Fujita > > wrote: > >>So, I dropped the COPY part. > > > >Ouch. I think we should try to figure out how the COPY part

Re: [HACKERS] changed column-count breaks pdf build

On 8/17/17 09:34, Erik Rijkers wrote: > The feature matrix table in high-availability.sgml had a column added so > also increase the column-count (patch attached). fixed, thanks -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA,

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Kapila writes: >> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I should think it wouldn't be that expensive to create a test >>> case, if you already have test cases

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM salt length

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 08/17/2017 05:42 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> That's now or never. > > Not really. That constant is just the default to use when creating new > password verifiers, but the code can handle any salt length, and

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM salt length

On 8/17/17 09:21, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > The RFC doesn't say anything about salt > length, but the one example in it uses a 16 byte string as the salt. > That's more or less equal to the current default of 12 raw bytes, after > base64-encoding. The example is S:

Re: [HACKERS] pl/perl extension fails on Windows

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Dave Page writes: > > It's ActiveState Perl 5.8.8. Printing $Config{ccflags} doesn't seem to do > > anything, but perl -V output is below: > > That's weird ... you get nothing from > > perl -MConfig -e

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90

Amit Kapila writes: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I should think it wouldn't be that expensive to create a test >> case, if you already have test cases that invoke GatherMerge. >> Adding a right join against a VALUES clause

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM salt length

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Different thing. That was the nonce length, now we're talking about salt > length. Actually that commit (0557a5dc2cf845639d384801b6861ebbd35dc7ee) changed both: -#define SCRAM_RAW_NONCE_LEN 10 +#define

Re: [HACKERS] pl/perl extension fails on Windows

Dave Page writes: > It's ActiveState Perl 5.8.8. Printing $Config{ccflags} doesn't seem to do > anything, but perl -V output is below: That's weird ... you get nothing from perl -MConfig -e 'print $Config{ccflags}' ? regards, tom lane -- Sent

[HACKERS] changed column-count breaks pdf build

The feature matrix table in high-availability.sgml had a column added so also increase the column-count (patch attached). thanks, Erik Rijkers--- doc/src/sgml/high-availability.sgml.orig 2017-08-17 15:04:32.535819637 +0200 +++ doc/src/sgml/high-availability.sgml 2017-08-17 15:04:46.528122345

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM salt length

On 08/17/2017 04:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: In the initial discussions there was as well a mention about using 16 bytes. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/507550bd.2030...@vmware.com As we are using

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM salt length

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > In the initial discussions there was as well a mention about using 16 bytes. > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/507550bd.2030...@vmware.com > As we are using SCRAM-SHA-256, let's bump it up and be

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

On 17 August 2017 at 10:59, Jeevan Ladhe wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Jeevan Ladhe >> wrote: >> > I have rebased the patches on the

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > > Attached rest of the patches. 0001 has changes per Ashutosh's review > comments [2]: > > 0001: Relieve RelationGetPartitionDispatchInfo() of doing any locking [2] had a patch with some changes to the

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

On 17 August 2017 at 06:39, Amit Langote wrote: > Hi Amit, > > Thanks for the comments. > > On 2017/08/16 20:30, Amit Khandekar wrote: >> On 16 August 2017 at 11:06, Amit Langote >> wrote: >> >>> Attached updated patches. >> >>

Re: [HACKERS] Garbled comment in postgresGetForeignJoinPaths

On 2017/08/17 1:31, Tom Lane wrote: postgres_fdw.c around line 4500: /* * If there is a possibility that EvalPlanQual will be executed, we need * to be able to reconstruct the row using scans of the base relations. * GetExistingLocalJoinPath will find a suitable path for

Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

On 2017/04/04 18:01, Etsuro Fujita wrote: I rebased the patch also. Please find attached an updated version of the patch. I rebased the patch to HEAD. PFA a new version of the patch. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita *** a/contrib/postgres_fdw/expected/postgres_fdw.out ---

Re: [HACKERS] Add support for tuple routing to foreign partitions

On 2017/08/17 20:37, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: I spent some time on this. To handle that, I'd like to propose doing something similar to \copy (frontend copy): submit a COPY query "COPY ... FROM STDIN" to the

Re: [HACKERS] Add support for tuple routing to foreign partitions

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > On 2017/07/11 6:56, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Etsuro Fujita >> wrote: >>> >>> So, I dropped the COPY part. >> >> >> Ouch. I think we should try to

Re: [HACKERS] Fix number skipping in to_number

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > Hmm. Just in case my macOS laptop (CC=Apple's clang, > LANG=en_NZ.UTF-8) was unduly affected by cosmic rays I tried on a > couple of nearby servers running FreeBSD 11.1 (CC=clang, LANG=) > and CentOS 7.3

Re: [HACKERS] Default Partition for Range

PFA the patch rebased over v25 patches of default list partition [1] [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOgcT0NwqnavYtu-QM-DAZ6N%3DwTiqKgy83WwtO2x94LSLZ1-Sw%40mail.gmail.com -- Beena Emerson EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: [HACKERS] Subscription code improvements

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/8/17 05:58, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> Are you planning to work on remaining patches 0005 and 0006 that >> improve the subscription codes in PG11 cycle? If not, I will take over >> them and work on

Re: [HACKERS] Fix number skipping in to_number

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Oliver Ford wrote: >> The tests you added pass for me but the int8 test now fails with the >> following (this is from regression.diff after running >> 'PG_REGRESS_DIFF_OPTS="-dU10" make check'). It looks like some new >> whitespace is appearing

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

Hi Robert, >> > 0007: > >> > This patch introduces code to check if the scanning of default > partition > >> > child > >> > can be skipped if it's constraints are proven. > >> > >> If I understand correctly, this is actually a completely separate > >> feature not intrinsically related to default

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

Hi Robert, Please find my feedback inlined. I have addressed following comments in V25 patch[1]. > > 0002: > > This patch teaches the partitioning code to handle the NIL returned by > > get_qual_for_list(). > > This is needed because a default partition will not have any constraints > in > >

Re: [HACKERS] Remove 1MB size limit in tsvector

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 18:06:17 +0300 Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Robert Haas > wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Ildus K > > wrote: > > > It's a workaround.

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

Hi Ashutosh, On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Jeevan Ladhe wrote: > Hi Ashutosh, > > Please find my feedback inlined. > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < > ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Jeevan

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

Hi Ashutosh, Please find my feedback inlined. On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Jeevan Ladhe > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have rebased the patches on the latest commit. > > >

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: multivariate histograms and MCV lists

On 08/14/2017 12:48 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Hi all, > > For PostgreSQL 10 we managed to get the basic CREATE STATISTICS bits in > (grammar, infrastructure, and two simple types of statistics). See: > > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/13/852/ > > This patch presents a rebased version of

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >>> I believe that between this commit and the test-coverage commit from >>> Andres, this open item is reasonably well addressed. If someone

Re: [HACKERS] Fix number skipping in to_number

> The tests you added pass for me but the int8 test now fails with the > following (this is from regression.diff after running > 'PG_REGRESS_DIFF_OPTS="-dU10" make check'). It looks like some new > whitespace is appearing on the right in the output of to_char(). I > didn't try to understand why.

Re: [HACKERS] recovery_target_time = 'now' is not an error but still impractical setting

On 15 August 2017 at 15:37, Piotr Stefaniak wrote: > One thing I tried was a combination of recovery_target_action = > 'shutdown' and recovery_target_time = 'now'. The result is surprising Indeed, special timestamp values were never considered in the design, so I'm

Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote: > > Either we can pass "num_gene" to merge_clump or we can store num_gene > in the root. And inside merge_clump we can check. Do you see some more > complexity? > After putting some more thought I see one more problem but

Re: [HACKERS] Refactoring identifier checks to consistently use strcmp

> On 16 Aug 2017, at 17:51, Tom Lane wrote: > > Heikki Linnakangas writes: >> This no longer works: > >> postgres=# CREATE TEXT SEARCH DICTIONARY public.simple_dict ( >> TEMPLATE = pg_catalog.simple, >> "STOPWORds" = english >> ); >> ERROR:

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On 16 August 2017 at 18:34, Robert Haas wrote: > Thanks for the benchmarking results! > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Rafia Sabih > wrote: >> Q4 | 244 | 12 | PA and PWJ, time by only PWJ - 41 > > 12 seconds instead of 244? Whoa. I find

Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 3:50 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> Right. >>> > > I think skipping a generation of gather

Re: [HACKERS] Default Partition for Range

Hello, PFA the updated patch which returns NULL instead of true when the default partition has no constraints and also have modified the output as discussed above. This applies over v24 patch [1] of default list partition. I will rebase over the next version when it is updated. [1]

Re: [HACKERS] Add support for tuple routing to foreign partitions

On 2017/07/11 6:56, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: So, I dropped the COPY part. Ouch. I think we should try to figure out how the COPY part will be handled before we commit to a design. I spent some time on this. To

Re: [HACKERS] HISTIGNORE for psql

2017-08-17 9:23 GMT+02:00 Vesa-Matti J Kari : > > Hello, > > Bash has HISTIGNORE feature that allows you to exclude certain commands > from the command history (e.g. shutdown, reboot, rm *). > > Would it make any sense to add such a feature to psql (e.g. to ignore > DROP,

Re: [HACKERS] pl/perl extension fails on Windows

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > Sandeep Thakkar writes: > >> We built the sources with this patch and were able to create the plperl > >> extension on Windows 32bit and 64bit. > > > Excellent, thanks for

Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM salt length

On 16 August 2017 at 14:10, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > The SCRAM salt length is currently set as > > /* length of salt when generating new verifiers */ > #define SCRAM_DEFAULT_SALT_LEN 12 > > without further comment. > > I suspect that this length was chosen

Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

On 2017/08/17 10:09, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/08/16 20:30, Amit Khandekar wrote: >> On 16 August 2017 at 11:06, Amit Langote >> wrote: >> I am not >> sure whether we are planning to commit these two things together or >> incrementally : >> 1. Expand in bound

[HACKERS] HISTIGNORE for psql

Hello, Bash has HISTIGNORE feature that allows you to exclude certain commands from the command history (e.g. shutdown, reboot, rm *). Would it make any sense to add such a feature to psql (e.g. to ignore DROP, DELETE commands)? Regards, vmk --