Re: [HACKERS] More stats about skipped vacuums

Mmm. I've failed to create a brand-new thread.. Thank you for the comment. At Fri, 20 Oct 2017 19:15:16 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote in

[HACKERS] proposal: schema variables

Hi, I propose a new database object - a variable. The variable is persistent object, that holds unshared session based not transactional in memory value of any type. Like variables in any other languages. The persistence is required for possibility to do static checks, but can be limited to

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

Hi Maksim, On 2017/10/02 21:37, Maksim Milyutin wrote: On 11.09.2017 16:01, Etsuro Fujita wrote: * Query planning: the patch creates copies of Query/Plan with a foreign partition as target from the original Query/Plan for each foreign partition and invokes PlanForeignModify with those copies,

[HACKERS] Try to fix endless loop in ecpg with informix mode

Hi, I tried some tests with ecpg informix mode. When trying to store float data into a integer var, I got endless loop. The reason is: In informix mode, ecpg can accept string form of float number when processing query result. During checking the string form of float number, it seems that ecpg

Re: [HACKERS] show "aggressive" or not in autovacuum logs

Thank you for the comment. (Thank you Sawada-san for reviewng, too.) At Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:03:38 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote in <20171019110338.awwzc3y674co7wof@alvherre.pgsql> > Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > > How about the followings? > > > > "automatic [agressive

Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] ECPG: fails to recognize embedded parameters

> The cause is that next_insert() in ecpglib unconditionally skips the > next character after the backslash. > > Could you review and commit the attached patch? I also attached the > test program for convenience. Thanks for spotting and fixing. I just committed your patch to master and

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Is anything preventing us from allowing write to foreign tables from standby?

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 18 October 2017 at 02:01, Alexander Korotkov > wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Alexander Korotkov >> wrote: >>> >>> We're currently blocking writing

[HACKERS] Subscriber resets additional columns to NULL on UPDATE

Hi, I found bug in logical replication where extra (nullable) columns on subscriber will be reset to NULL value when update comes from provider. The issue is apparently that we /points finger at himself/ forgot to check specifically for columns that are not part of attribute map in

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?

Hello. Thank you for looking this. At Mon, 16 Oct 2017 17:58:03 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote in > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: > > At

Re: [HACKERS] Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a single subpath

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:29 AM, David Rowley wrote: > However, method 2 appears to also require some Var > translation in Path targetlists which contain this Proxy path, either > that or some global Var replacement would need to be done during > setrefs. > For

[HACKERS] Index only scan for cube and seg

Hi hackers! Here are patches enabling Index Only Scan for cube and seg extensions. These patches follow this discussion [0]. For cube there is new default opclass. We cannot drop old opclass, because it could TOAST come cube values in rare occasions. Index Only Scan is enabled only for newly

Re: [HACKERS] Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a single subpath

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:59 PM, David Rowley wrote: > As of today, because we include this needless [Merge]Append node, we > cannot parallelise scans below the Append. Without disputing your general notion that singe-child Append or MergeAppend nodes are a

Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Masahiko Sawada >> wrote: >>> The previous patch conflicts with

Re: [HACKERS] Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a single subpath

David Rowley wrote: > Method 1: > > In set_append_rel_size() detect when just a single subpath would be > added to the Append path. I spent some time reviewing the partition-wise join patch during the last CF and have an impression that set_append_rel_size() is

Re: [HACKERS] show "aggressive" or not in autovacuum logs

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Thank you. I forgot that point. Changed them so that the messages > are detected as msgids. Committed, changing "aggressive" to "aggressively" in one place for correct English. -- Robert Haas

Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Right, exactly. But my point is that with the whole patch series > applied I didn't get any warnings. Sorry, I misread your message. You use Linux I suppose, what's your compiler? -- Michael -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 2017/10/26 20:34, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> It can perhaps taught to not make that conclusion by taking into account >> the default partition's partition constraint, which includes constraint >> inherited from

Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] ECPG: fails to recognize embedded parameters

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Michael Meskes > Thanks for spotting and fixing. I just committed your patch to master and > backported to 9.4, 9.5, 9.6 and 10. It doesn't apply cleanly to 9.3. But > then it might not be important

[HACKERS] FieldSelect/FieldStore dependencies, take 2

I had a nagging feeling that commit f3ea3e3e8 was not quite covering all the bases with respect to what dependencies to record for FieldSelect/FieldStore nodes: it looked at the result type, but what about the input type? Just now, while fooling around with domains over composite, I stumbled

Re: [HACKERS] Remove secondary checkpoint

From: Alvaro Herrera [mailto:alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org] > Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > > > (Although unrelated to this, I've also been wondering why PostgreSQL > > flushes WAL to disk when writing a page in the shared buffer, because > > PostgreSQL doesn't use WAL for undo.) > > The reason is that

Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Michael Paquier wrote: >> It seems to me that this proves the point of the proposed patch. You >> had better use a zero-equality comparison for such bitwise operation, >> and so you ought to do that: >> boolisprimary = (flags &

[HACKERS] [bug fix] postgres.exe crashes with access violation on Windows while starting up

Hello, We encountered a rare and hard-to-investigate problem on Windows, which one of our customers reported. Please find the attached patch to fix that. I'll add this to the next CF. PROBLEM == PostgreSQL sometimes crashes with the following messages. This is

[HACKERS] Re: [bug fix] postgres.exe crashes with access violation on Windows while starting up

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tsunakawa, > Takayuki > The reason is for not outputing the crash dump is a) the crash occurred > before installing the Windows exception handler > (pgwin32_install_crashdump_handler() call) and b)

Re: [HACKERS] Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a single subpath

On 26 October 2017 at 23:42, Antonin Houska wrote: > David Rowley wrote: > >> Method 1: >> >> In set_append_rel_size() detect when just a single subpath would be >> added to the Append path. > > I spent some time reviewing the partition-wise join

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: pgbench - option to build using ppoll() for larger connection counts

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Rady, Doug wrote: > This patch enables building pgbench to use ppoll() instead of select() > > to allow for more than (FD_SETSIZE - 10) connections. As implemented, > > when using ppoll(), the only connection limitation is system resources.

Re: [HACKERS] Transform for pl/perl

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 1:01 PM, anthony wrote: > Hello. > Please, check out jsonb transform > (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/sql-createtransform.html) > for pl/perl language I've implemented. Neat. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Process variadic arguments consistently in json functions

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Argh! I see that in your v6 patch and I thought I'd caught all of it but > apparently not for master and REL_10. I wonder how that happened? I am fine to take the blame. Likely an M-c pushed in emacs.. -- Michael --

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Pavel Stehule > I propose a new database object - a variable. The variable is persistent > object, that holds unshared session based not transactional in memory value > of any type. Like variables

Re: [HACKERS] Pluggable storage

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> Another thing to consider is that, if we could replace satisfiesfunc, >> it would probably break some existing code. There are multiple places >> in the code that compare snapshot->satisfies to >>

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: BRIN bloom indexes

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Let's see a query like this: > > select * from bloom_test > where id = '8db1d4a6-31a6-e9a2-4e2c-0e842e1f1772'; > > The minmax index produces this plan > >Heap Blocks: lossy=2061856 > Execution

[HACKERS] Burst in WAL size when UUID is used as PK while full_page_writes are enabled

Hi, I was reading the blog https://blog.2ndquadrant.com/on-the-impact-of-full-page-writes . My queries: How randomness of UUID will likely to create new leaf page in btree index? In my understanding as the size of UUID is 128 bits i.e. twice of BIGSERIAL , more number of pages will be

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables

Hi 2017-10-27 0:07 GMT+02:00 Nico Williams : > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 09:21:24AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > Comments, notes? > > I like it. > > I would further like to move all of postgresql.conf into the database, > as much as possible, as well as pg_ident.conf and

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables

> Hi, > > I propose a new database object - a variable. The variable is persistent > object, that holds unshared session based not transactional in memory value > of any type. Like variables in any other languages. The persistence is > required for possibility to do static checks, but can be

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >> I don't think we really want to get into theorem-proving here, because >> it's slow. > > Just to be clear, I'm saying we could use theorem-proving (if at all) just > for the default partition. I don't really

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Lockable views

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Yugo Nagata wrote: > In the attached patch, only automatically-updatable views that do not have > INSTEAD OF rules or INSTEAD OF triggers are lockable. It is assumed that > those views definition have only one base-relation. When an

Re: [HACKERS] Implementing pg_receivewal --no-sync

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > This sentence is actually wrong, a feedback message is never sent with > the feedback message. Eh? I think this looks basically fine, though I'd omit the short option for it. There are only so many letters in

Re: [HACKERS] How to determine that a TransactionId is really aborted?

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Eric Ridge wrote: > When sitting inside an extension, and given an arbitrary TransactionId, how > can you determine that it aborted/crashed *and* that no other active > transaction thinks it is still running? > > I've tried to answer this

Re: [HACKERS] Timeline ID in backup_label file

On 10/25/17 10:10 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 26 October 2017 at 02:50, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> >> I would find interesting to add at the bottom of the backup_label file >> a new field called "START TIMELINE: %d" to put this information in a >> more understandable

Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Ants Aasma wrote: > Exposing this interface as WAITLSN will encode that visibility order > matches LSN order. That would be a bad thing to encode because it doesn't. Well... actually on the standby it does, and that's the only thing that

Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> >> Foreign Transaction Resolver >> == >> I introduced a new background worker called "foreign

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II

While re-basing the parallel-B-tree-index-build patch on top v22 patch sets, found cosmetic review: 1) BufFileSetEstimate is removed but it's still into buffile.h +extern size_t BufFileSetEstimate(int stripes); 2) BufFileSetCreate is renamed with BufFileSetInit, but used at below place in

Re: [HACKERS] Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a single subpath

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:07 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 26 October 2017 at 23:42, Antonin Houska wrote: >> David Rowley wrote: >> >>> Method 1: >>> >>> In set_append_rel_size() detect when just a single subpath

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: pgbench - option to build using ppoll() for larger connection counts

Without this patch, one is limited to '(FD_SETSIZE - 10)’ number of connections. Example of something that fails without this patch but works with the patch: Without the patch: $ pgbench -j 3000 -c 1500 invalid number of clients: "1500" With the patch: $ pgbench -j 3000 -c 1500 starting

Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Ivan Kartyshov wrote: > Ants Aasma писал 2017-09-26 13:00: >> >> Exposing this interface as WAITLSN will encode that visibility order >> matches LSN order. This removes any chance of fixing for example >> visibility order of

Re: [HACKERS] Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a single subpath

On 26 October 2017 at 23:30, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:59 PM, David Rowley > wrote: >> As of today, because we include this needless [Merge]Append node, we >> cannot parallelise scans below the Append. > > Without

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Process variadic arguments consistently in json functions

On 10/26/2017 12:12 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> Process variadic arguments consistently in json functions >> >> json_build_object and json_build_array and the jsonb equivalents did not >> correctly process explicit

Re: [HACKERS] Timeline ID in backup_label file

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:50 AM, David Steele wrote: > On 10/25/17 10:10 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> On 26 October 2017 at 02:50, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> >>> I would find interesting to add at the bottom of the backup_label file >>> a new

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > The largest obstacle to do that is that walreceiver is not > utterly concerned to record internals. In other words, it doesn't > know what a record is. Teaching that introduces much complexity > and the

Re: [HACKERS] Flexible configuration for full-text search

> The patch introduces way to configure FTS based on CASE/WHEN/THEN/ELSE > construction. Interesting feature. I needed this flexibility before when I was implementing text search for a Turkish private listing application. Aleksandr and Arthur were kind enough to discuss it with me off-list

Re: [HACKERS] Remove secondary checkpoint

Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > (Although unrelated to this, I've also been wondering why PostgreSQL > flushes WAL to disk when writing a page in the shared buffer, because > PostgreSQL doesn't use WAL for undo.) The reason is that if the system crashes after writing the data page to disk, but

Re: [HACKERS] How to determine that a TransactionId is really aborted?

Eric Ridge wrote: > > Again, you'll probably need to put this low level requirement into > > context if you want sound advice from this list. > > I'm just thinking out lout here, but the context is likely something > along the lines of externally storing all transaction ids, and > periodically

Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Since the previous patch conflicts with current HEAD, I attached the > updated patch for next CF. I think we should back up here and ask ourselves a couple of questions: 1. What are we trying to accomplish here?

Re: [HACKERS] CurTransactionContext freed before transaction COMMIT ???

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Gaddam Sai Ram wrote: > Thanks for the response, > > Can you check if CurTransactionContext is valid at that point? > > > Any Postgres function to check if CurTransactionContext is valid or not? > > To see, if this problem is related

Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Ants Aasma wrote: > If the UI > were something like "WAITVISIBILITY token", then we can later change > the token to something other than LSN. That assumes, probably optimistically, that nobody will develop a dependency on it being, precisely,

Re: [HACKERS] Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a single subpath

David Rowley writes: > It seems like a good idea for the planner not to generate Append or > MergeAppend paths when the node contains just a single subpath. > ... > Perhaps there is also a "Method 3" which I've not thought about which > would be much cleaner. Have

Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Here is an updated patch set. This is just a rebase of the previous > set, no substantial changes. Based on the discussion so far, I'm > proposing that 0001 through 0007 could be ready to commit after review, > whereas the remaining two need more work at some later

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Postgres 10 manual breaks links with anchors

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 10/16/17 03:19, Thomas Kellerer wrote: >> I don't know if this is intentional, but the Postgres 10 manual started to >> use lowercase IDs as anchors in the manual. > Here is a patch that can be applied to PG 10 to put the upper

Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions

On 2017-09-27 14:46, Stas Kelvich wrote: On 7 Sep 2017, at 18:58, Nikhil Sontakke wrote: Hi, FYI all, wanted to mention that I am working on an updated version of the latest patch that I plan to submit to a later CF. Cool! So what kind of architecture do you have

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Postgres 10 manual breaks links with anchors

On 10/16/17 03:19, Thomas Kellerer wrote: > I don't know if this is intentional, but the Postgres 10 manual started to > use lowercase IDs as anchors in the manual. > > So, if I have e.g.: the following URL open in my browser: > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a single subpath

David Rowley writes: > On 27 October 2017 at 01:44, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> I think Antonin has a point. The join processing may deem some base >> relations dummy (See populate_joinrel_with_paths()). So an Append >> relation which

Re: [HACKERS] Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a single subpath

On 27 October 2017 at 01:44, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > I think Antonin has a point. The join processing may deem some base > relations dummy (See populate_joinrel_with_paths()). So an Append > relation which had multiple child alive at the end of >

Re: [HACKERS] Refactor handling of database attributes between pg_dump and pg_dumpall

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > Apologies for not providing much details. > > pg_dumpall is used to produce the following statements for database, > > "Create database" (other than default database) or > "Alter database set tablespace" for

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > It can perhaps taught to not make that conclusion by taking into account > the default partition's partition constraint, which includes constraint > inherited from the parent, viz. 1 <= col1 < 50001. To do

Re: [HACKERS] legitimacy of using PG_TRY , PG_CATCH , PG_END_TRY in C function

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > It'd probably be a good idea to expand on this in the sgml docs. This > has confused quite anumber of people... That's a good idea. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL

Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > Foreign Transaction Resolver > == > I introduced a new background worker called "foreign transaction > resolver" which is responsible for resolving the transaction prepared > on foreign servers.

[HACKERS] Adding table_constraint description in ALTER TABLE synopsis

Hi, In documentation, I've found that table_constraint is used in the ALTER TABLE synopsis but that definition of table_constraint is missing, so I submitted bug #14873. I found the table_constraint definition in the CREATE TABLE synopsis and I just copied/pasted it on the ALTER TABLE synopsis.

[HACKERS] proposal: custom autovacuum entries

Hi hackers, I would like to remove records from a time series table older than a certain age. My understanding of current standard practice is to configure an external scheduler like cron to perform the deletion. My proposal is to allow clients to register functions on the tail end of the

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: custom autovacuum entries

Jordan Deitch writes: > I would like to remove records from a time series table older than a > certain age. My understanding of current standard practice is to configure > an external scheduler like cron to perform the deletion. > My proposal is to allow clients to register

Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I gave this a quick run, to see if my compiler would complain for things > like this: > >boolisprimary = flags & INDEX_CREATE_IS_PRIMARY; > > (taken from the first patch at >

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: custom autovacuum entries

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jordan Deitch writes: >> I would like to remove records from a time series table older than a >> certain age. My understanding of current standard practice is to configure >> an external scheduler like

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 09:21:24AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Comments, notes? I like it. I would further like to move all of postgresql.conf into the database, as much as possible, as well as pg_ident.conf and pg_hba.conf. Variables like current_user have a sort of nesting context

Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use

Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > I gave this a quick run, to see if my compiler would complain for things > > like this: > > > >boolisprimary = flags & INDEX_CREATE_IS_PRIMARY; > > > > (taken from the first