Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Add --no-comments to skip COMMENTs with pg_dump

On 1 September 2017 at 22:08, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> Thinking ahead, are we going to add a new --no-objecttype

Re: [HACKERS] Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion

Seeing it as is, it calls for having "SERVER_VERSION" as well, but I'm not sure of the better way to get it. I tried with "SELECT VERSION() AS SERVER_VERSION \gset" but varnames are lowerized. The problem there is you can't get version() without an extra round trip to the server --- and an

Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Add --no-comments to skip COMMENTs with pg_dump

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> I'd personally be fine with --no-whatever for any whatever that might >>> be a subsidiary property of database objects. We've got >>> --no-security-labels, --no-tablespaces, --no-owner, and >>> --no-privileges

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add psql variables showing server version and psql version.

Hello, * Clarification that this will work for current AND past server versions The short answer is it works. I do not think we need a longer answer. To have something operational you have to know quite a bit of psql details (:-substitutions, backslash command logic, gset, if, quit...).

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

> > > I think a GUC is a decent, though not perfect, mechanism for this. > This problem isn't restricted to PL/pgsql; indeed, the cases I've seen > have come via prepared queries, not PL/pgsql functions. Even without > that, one advantage of a GUC is that they are fairly broadly > understood and

Re: [HACKERS] Fix performance of generic atomics

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Sokolov Yura wrote: > Yes, you're right. > > But I think, generic version still should be "fixed". > If generic version is not reached on any platform, then why it is kept? > If it is reached somewhere, then it should be improved. This

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add psql variables showing server version and psql version.

On 6 September 2017 at 06:38, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: >> Based upon input from Tom and Fabien, I propose this additional doc patch. > > I do not think any of this is appropriate, particularly not the reference > to 7.0.3. OK, no problem.

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add psql variables showing server version and psql version.

Simon Riggs writes: > * Clarification that this will work for current AND past server versions The short answer is it works. I do not think we need a longer answer. (The existing comment in libpq says that the "select version()" method works in any server version that

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Amit Khandekar wrote: > On 4 September 2017 at 07:43, Amit Kapila wrote: > Oops sorry. Now attached. I have done some basic testing and initial review of the patch. I have some comments/doubts. I will continue

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Assert that the correct locks are held when calling PageGetLSN()

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Jacob Champion wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> +#if defined(USE_ASSERT_CHECKING) &&

Re: [HACKERS] Fix performance of generic atomics

Robert Haas writes: > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Sokolov Yura > wrote: >> But I think, generic version still should be "fixed". >> If generic version is not reached on any platform, then why it is kept? >> If it is reached somewhere, then

Re: [HACKERS] Fix performance of generic atomics

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> This seems like a pretty sound argument to me. I think Tom's probably >> right that the changes in generic-gcc.h are the important ones, but >> I'm not sure that's an argument against patching generics.h. Given >> that

Re: [HACKERS] Create replication slot in pg_basebackup if requested and not yet present

On 8/18/17 05:28, Michael Banck wrote: >>> Rebased, squashed and slighly edited version attached. I've added this >>> to the 2017-07 commitfest now as well: >>> >>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/1112/ >> Can you rebase this past some conflicting changes? > Thanks for letting me know, PFA a

Re: [HACKERS] merge psql ef/ev sf/sv handling functions

you can't do this sort of thing: -psql_error("The server (version %s) does not support editing function source.\n", +psql_error("The server (version %s) does not support editing %s.\n", formatPGVersionNumber(pset.sversion, false, -

Re: [HACKERS] Causal reads take II

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > Rebased after conflicting commit 030273b7. Now using format-patch > with a commit message to keep track of review/discussion history. TAP test 006_logical_decoding.pl failed with that version. I had missed

Re: [HACKERS] ANALYZE command progress checker

On 2017/04/05 10:17, Masahiko Sawada wrote: On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Amit Langote wrote: Hmm, you're right. It could be counted with a separate variable initialized to 0 and

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Amit Khandekar wrote: > The last updated patch needs a rebase. Attached is the rebased version. > Few comments on the first read of the patch: 1. @@ -279,6 +347,7 @@ void ExecReScanAppend(AppendState *node) { int i; +

Re: [HACKERS] Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage

On 2017/09/07 13:09, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> The idea I'd had was to apply the masking only if pd_lower >= >> SizeOfPageHeaderData, or if you wanted to be stricter, only if >> pd_lower != 0. > > If putting a check, it seems

Re: [HACKERS] Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Langote writes: >> On 2017/08/22 9:39, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Amit Langote >>> wrote: I updated brin_mask() and

Re: [HACKERS] Minor code improvement to postgresGetForeignPlan

On 2017/09/07 6:52, Tom Lane wrote: Tatsuro Yamada writes: The declaration of postgresGetForeignPlan uses baserel, but the actual definition uses foreignrel. It would be better to sync. Pushed, thanks. regards, tom lane Thanks!

Re: [HACKERS] Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage

On 2017/09/07 8:51, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Amit Langote writes: >>> On 2017/08/22 9:39, Michael Paquier wrote: On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Amit Langote

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER INDEX .. SET STATISTICS ... behaviour

On 4 September 2017 at 10:30, Adrien Nayrat wrote: > On 09/04/2017 06:16 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: >> Looks good for me. I've integrated those changes in the patch. >> New revision is attached. > > Thanks, I changed status to "ready for commiter". This looks useful

Re: [HACKERS] Fix performance of generic atomics

Robert Haas writes: > It's not a question of whether the return value is used, but of > whether the updated value of *old is used. Right, but if we re-read "old" in the loop, and if the primitive doesn't return "old" (or does, but call site ignores it) then in principle

<    1   2