Hi Amit.
Thanks a lot for updated patches and sorry that I couldn't get to looking
at your emails sooner. Note that I'm replying here to both of your
emails, but looking at only the latest v22 patch.
On 2017/10/24 0:15, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> On 16 October 2017 at 08:28, Amit Langote
> wrote:
Hi
2017-11-02 3:39 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut :
> Could someone clarify the status of this patch set? It has been in
> "Waiting" mode since the previous CF and no new patch, just a few
> questions from the author.
>
There was a state "needs review". I looked to the patch, and found some
issues,
> I am afraid the changes may separate "7.a" to "7" and "a", then error
> out
> with "invalid input syntax for type int" for "a".
Which is correct, is it not?
> How about changes as below? (use following the if to decide true or
> false)
> ...
>return false;
> +} while (is
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 2:05 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 11/1/17 10:29, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Peter Eisentraut
>> wrote:
>>> Committed to master. I suppose this should be backpatched?
>>
>> Thanks! Yes this should be back-patched.
>
> OK, done for 10, 9.6,
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: not tested
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
Hi,
Unfortunately, patches 0001 and 0002 don't apply to current master.
The
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 3:46 PM, amul sul wrote:
> Although partition constraints become more simple, there isn't any performance
> gain with 0005 patch. Also I am little skeptic about logic in 0005 where we
> copied extended hash function info from the partition key, what if parent is
> changed wh
On 2 November 2017 at 01:14, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Nico Williams wrote:
>
>> As an aside, I'd like to be able to control which CTEs are view-like and
>> which are table-like. In SQLite3, for example, they are all view-like,
>> and the optimizer will act accordingly, whereas in PG they are all
>
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 3:46 PM, amul sul wrote:
>> Although partition constraints become more simple, there isn't any
>> performance
>> gain with 0005 patch. Also I am little skeptic about logic in 0005 where we
>> copied extended hash functio
Tsunakawa>So the statement-level rollback is newer to users, isn't it?
Technically speaking, the feature was listed in the changelog.
Tsunakawa>Doesn't PgJDBC execute RELEASE after each SQL statement?
It does not.
Tsunakawa>That said, even with RELEASE, the server memory bloat is not
solved.
T
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 3:46 PM, amul sul wrote:
>> Although partition constraints become more simple, there isn't any
>> performance
>> gain with 0005 patch. Also I am little skeptic about logic in 0005 where we
>> copied extended hash functio
On 2 November 2017 at 01:33, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> The proposed statement-level rollback feature works in a slightly
> different context. It does not change when or how a transaction or
> transaction block begins and ends. It only changes what happens inside
> explicit transaction blocks.
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> sorry for the delay but I didn't have much time in past weeks to follow
> this thread.
+TimestampTz now = GetCurrentTimestamp();
+
/* output previously gathered data in a CopyData packet */
pq_putmessage_noblock('d', ctx->out->da
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 1:45 PM, amul sul wrote:
> Yes, you are correct, column involved in the partitioning are immutable.
>
> I was just worried about any change in the partition key column that
> might change selected hash function.
Any such change, even if it were allowed, would have to take
A
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> Right now partition keys are immutable but we don't have much code
> written with that assumption. All the code usually keeps a lock on the
> parent till the time they use the information in the partition key. In
> a distant future, which may
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 17:05:58 -0400
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 9/12/17 10:55, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote:
> >> The patch also includes custom compression method for tsvector
> >> which is used in tests.
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfdsdTA5uZeq6MNXL5ZRuNx%2BSig4ykWzW
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> ... but I'm not sure that it's an improvement in cases where you have to
> cast away the const somewhere else.
I agree. I guess I may be in the minority here but I don't really
like decorating things with const too much because I have tended to
Hi,
On 2017-09-28 14:47:53 +, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple
>
> Vacuum calls page-level HOT prune to remove dead HOT tuples before doing
> liveness checks (HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum) on the remaining tuples. But
> concurrent transaction commit/abort may turn
Proposal:
Add the ability to the PostgreSQL server instance to route the traffic to a
different server instance based on the rules defined in server's pg_bha.conf
configuration file. At a high level this enables offloading the user requests
to a different server instance based on the rules defin
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think a5736bf754c82d8b86674e199e232096c679201d might be dangerous in
> the face of previously corrupted tuple chains and pg_upgraded clusters -
> it can lead to tuples being considered related, even though they they're
> from entirely indepe
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> The variables can be modified by SQL command SET (this is taken from
> standard, and it natural)
>
> SET varname = expression;
Overloading SET to handle both variables and GUCs seems likely to
create problems, possibly including security pr
Andres Freund wrote:
> I spent some time discussing this with Robert today (with both of us
> alternating between feeling the other and ourselves as stupid), and the
> conclusion I think is that the problem is on the pruning, rather than
> the freezing side.
Thanks both for spending some more tim
Hi,
On 2017-11-02 13:49:47 +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
> > I think the problem is on the pruning, rather than the freezing side. We
> > can't freeze a tuple if it has an alive predecessor - rather than
> > weakining this, we should be fixing the pruning to not have the aliv
On 10/3/17 12:31, Dang Minh Huong wrote:
> Sorry but please change "Huong Dangminh"(my name) to "Dang Minh Huong".
done
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pg
On 11/1/17 14:02, Nico Williams wrote:
> There already _is_ a two-argument form of current_setting() that yours
> somewhat conflicts with:
>
>current_setting(setting_name [, missing_ok ])
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/functions-admin.html
>
> I often use
>
> coalesce(
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 06:02:43AM +, Satyanarayana Narlapuram wrote:
> Proposal:
> Add the ability to the PostgreSQL server instance to route the
> traffic to a different server instance based on the rules defined in
> server's pg_bha.conf configuration file. At a high level this
> enables off
Andres Freund writes:
> Do we care about people upgrading to unreleased versions? We could do
> nothing, document it in the release notes, or ???
Do nothing.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
Hackers,
Our List implementation internally uses linked lists which are
certainly good for some things, but pretty bad at other things. Linked
lists are pretty bad when you want to fetch the Nth element, as it
means looping ever each previous element until you get to the Nth.
They're also pretty b
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > Do we care about people upgrading to unreleased versions? We could do
> > nothing, document it in the release notes, or ???
>
> Do nothing.
Agreed. Not much we can do there.
Thanks!
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital
David Rowley writes:
> Comments on the design are welcome, but I was too late to the
> commitfest, so there are other priorities. However, if you have a
> strong opinion, feel free to voice it.
I do not like replacing Lists piecemeal; that's a recipe for ongoing
API breakage and back-patching pai
On 3 November 2017 at 03:17, Tom Lane wrote:
> We've jacked up the List API and driven a new implementation underneath
> once before. Maybe it's time to do that again.
Maybe, but the new implementation is not going to do well with places
where we perform lcons(). Probably many of those places co
On 2 November 2017 at 22:17, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
>> Comments on the design are welcome, but I was too late to the
>> commitfest, so there are other priorities. However, if you have a
>> strong opinion, feel free to voice it.
>
> I do not like replacing Lists piecemeal; that's a
On 2 November 2017 at 22:22, David Rowley wrote:
> On 3 November 2017 at 03:17, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We've jacked up the List API and driven a new implementation underneath
>> once before. Maybe it's time to do that again.
>
> Maybe, but the new implementation is not going to do well with places
>
David,
* David Rowley (david.row...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> Our List implementation internally uses linked lists which are
> certainly good for some things, but pretty bad at other things. Linked
> lists are pretty bad when you want to fetch the Nth element, as it
> means looping ever each previ
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:tested, passed
Hi,
Looks good to me.
The only thing I'm not quite sure abo
David Rowley writes:
> On 3 November 2017 at 03:17, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We've jacked up the List API and driven a new implementation underneath
>> once before. Maybe it's time to do that again.
> Maybe, but the new implementation is not going to do well with places
> where we perform lcons(). Pr
On 3 November 2017 at 03:38, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
>> On 3 November 2017 at 03:17, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> We've jacked up the List API and driven a new implementation underneath
>>> once before. Maybe it's time to do that again.
>
>> Maybe, but the new implementation is not going
David Rowley writes:
>> It seems to me that a whole lot of the complaints about this could be
>> resolved simply by improving the List infrastructure to allocate ListCells
>> in batches. That would address the question of "too much palloc traffic"
>> and greatly improve the it-accesses-all-over-m
Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > Andres Freund writes:
> > > Do we care about people upgrading to unreleased versions? We could do
> > > nothing, document it in the release notes, or ???
> >
> > Do nothing.
>
> Agreed. Not much we can do there.
Pushed the rever
On 3 November 2017 at 03:27, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * David Rowley (david.row...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>> We could get around a few of these problems if Lists were implemented
>> internally as arrays, however, arrays are pretty bad if we want to
>> delete an item out the middle as we'd have to s
On 2 November 2017 at 17:41, Ildus Kurbangaliev
wrote:
> In this patch compression methods is suitable for MAIN and EXTENDED
> storages like in current implementation in postgres. Just instead only
> of LZ4 you can specify any other compression method.
We've had this discussion before.
Please r
On 26 October 2017 at 15:21, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I propose a new database object - a variable.
Didn't we have a pretty long discussion about this already in
Yeah.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAMsr%2BYF0G8_FehQyFS8gSfnEer9OPsMOvpfniDJOVGQzJzHzsw%40mail.gmail.com#camsr+
On 2 November 2017 at 14:02, Satyanarayana Narlapuram
wrote:
> Proposal:
>
> Add the ability to the PostgreSQL server instance to route the traffic to a
> different server instance based on the rules defined in server’s pg_bha.conf
> configuration file. At a high level this enables offloading the
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 06:05:54PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> > The variables can be modified by SQL command SET (this is taken from
> > standard, and it natural)
> >
> > SET varname = expression;
>
> Overloading SET to handle both vari
2017-11-02 16:35 GMT+01:00 Nico Williams :
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 06:05:54PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> > > The variables can be modified by SQL command SET (this is taken from
> > > standard, and it natural)
> > >
> > > SET varname
2017-11-02 16:07 GMT+01:00 Craig Ringer :
> On 26 October 2017 at 15:21, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I propose a new database object - a variable.
>
> Didn't we have a pretty long discussion about this already in
>
> Yeah.
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAMsr%2BYF0G8_
On 2017-11-02 10:38:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
> > On 3 November 2017 at 03:17, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> We've jacked up the List API and driven a new implementation underneath
> >> once before. Maybe it's time to do that again.
>
> > Maybe, but the new implementation is not g
Nico Williams writes:
> With access controls, GUCs could become schema variables, and settings
> from postgresql.conf could move into the database itself (which I think
> would be nice).
People re-propose some variant of that every so often, but it never works,
because it ignores the fact that so
2017-11-02 13:35 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas :
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> > The variables can be modified by SQL command SET (this is taken from
> > standard, and it natural)
> >
> > SET varname = expression;
>
> Overloading SET to handle both variables and GUCs seems
On 8/21/17 03:47, Feike Steenbergen wrote:
> When installing pgstattuple on 10, the documentation about its
> privileges was unclear to me. (Does the pg_stat_scan_tables role get
> EXECUTE privileges by default or not?).
I agree that this has gotten a bit confusing after apparently being
patched a
Please find a minor comment fix for receivelog.c, HandleCopyStream().
The comments talks about a START_STREAMING command, but i think
START_REPLICATION is what's meant here.
Bernd
diff --git a/src/bin/pg_basebackup/receivelog.c b/src/bin/pg_basebackup/receivelog.c
index 888458f4a9..befbb
Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Hmm, I'm pretty sure we stress-tested brin in pretty much the same way.
>> But I see this misbehavior too. Looking ...
> Turns out that this is related to concurrent growth of the table while
> the summarization process is scanning -- so new pages have appeared at
> the
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> >> Hmm, I'm pretty sure we stress-tested brin in pretty much the same way.
> >> But I see this misbehavior too. Looking ...
>
> > Turns out that this is related to concurrent growth of the table while
> > the summarization process is scanning -- so new
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Where are we on this --- do you want me to push the brin_doupdate
>> fix I proposed, or were you intending to merge that into a
>> larger patch?
> Please push your fixes, I'll post my proposed patch for the other bug
> afterwards; they are unrelated pro
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Pushed the reverts.
>
> I noticed while doing so that REL_10_STABLE contains the bogus commits.
> Does that change our opinion regarding what to do for people upgrading
> to a version containing the broken commits? I don't think so, because
On 9/11/17 21:55, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I tend to think that while all the other parameters make sense to
> deploy instances that need few resources, wal_keep_segments may cause
> up to 350MB of WAL segments to be kept in each pg_wal's instance,
> while max_wal_size is set at 128MB. The only tes
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:20 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think the problem is on the pruning, rather than the freezing side. We
> can't freeze a tuple if it has an alive predecessor - rather than
> weakining this, we should be fixing the pruning to not have the alive
> predecessor.
Excellent catc
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 9/11/17 21:55, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I tend to think that while all the other parameters make sense to
>> deploy instances that need few resources, wal_keep_segments may cause
>> up to 350MB of WAL segments to be kept in each pg_wal'
The only thing I'm not quite sure about is a comment "which meta command
...". Maybe it's better to write it without question word, something
like "meta command identifier..."?
Ok. I agree.
Updated version attached. I also added a const on a function parameter.
Just a note about the motivat
Updated version attached.
. Here is the patch. Sorry for the noise.
--
Fabien.diff --git a/src/bin/pgbench/pgbench.c b/src/bin/pgbench/pgbench.c
index 5d8a01c..6bd3e52 100644
--- a/src/bin/pgbench/pgbench.c
+++ b/src/bin/pgbench/pgbench.c
@@ -373,11 +373,21 @@ typedef enum QueryMode
static Q
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 1 November 2017 at 01:55, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> The problem here is: Iff the first statement uses ON CONFLICT
>> infrastructure, doesn't the absence of WHEN NOT MATCHED imply
>> different semantics for the remaining updates and deletes
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> The second commit (22576734b805fb0952f9be841ca8f643694ee868) is where
> I think things get a lot more dangerous. The problem (as Andres
> pointed out to me this afternoon) is that it seems possible to end up
> with a situation where there shoul
On 9/15/17 00:20, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> passwordcheck: Add test suite
>>>
>>> Also improve one error message.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: David Steele
>>
>> Sorry for showing u
On 9/20/17 01:56, Vaishnavi Prabakaran wrote:
> Backend's lo_functions were renamed to avoid conflicting with libpq
> prototypes in commit - 6fc547960dbe0b8bd6cefae5ab7ec3605a5c46fc.
>
> Logs inside those functions still refer to old symbol names, Here is the
> small patch to update the same.
I
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 17:50:52 +0100 (CET)
Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Updated version attached.
. Here is the patch. Sorry for the noise.
Everything alright. Patch is ready for commiter.
--
Aleksandr Parfenov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
--
Sent via
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I've proposed a SQL Standard compliant implementation that would do
> much more than be new syntax over what we already have.
>
> So these two claims aren't accurate: "radical difference" and "syntax
> sugar over a capability we have".
I think
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> The second commit (22576734b805fb0952f9be841ca8f643694ee868) is where
>> I think things get a lot more dangerous. The problem (as Andres
>> pointed out to me this afternoon) is that it
I'm working on a custom aggregate, that generates a serialized data format.
The preparation of the geometry before being formatted is pretty intense,
so it is probably a good thing for that work to be done in parallel, in
partial aggregates. Here's an example SQL call:
EXPLAIN analyze
SELECT lengt
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
>> Overloading SET to handle both variables and GUCs seems likely to
>> create problems, possibly including security problems. For example,
>> maybe a security-definer function could leave behind variables to
>> trick the calling code into fail
On 9/28/17 15:40, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
> In a case of
>
> initdb /tmp/pgsql
>
> followed by
>
> pg_ctl -D /tmp/pgsql/ -l /tmp/logfile restart
>
> you'll get
>
> pg_ctl: PID file "/tmp/pgsql/postmaster.pid" does not exist
> Is server running?
> starting server anyway
> pg_ctl: could not read
Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Unfortunately, I think we still have a problem ... I've been wondering
> if we end up producing correct indexes, so I've done a simple test.
Here's a proposed patch that should fix this problem (and does, in my
testing). Would you please give it a try?
This patch changes t
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> 1. in VACUUM or brin_summarize_new_values, we only process fully loaded
> ranges, and ignore the partial range at end of table.
OK.
> 2. when summarization is requested on the partial range at the end of a
> table, we acquire extension lock on the rel, then compute relat
Robert Haas wrote:
And if, in the meantime, MERGE can only handle the cases where there
is a unique index, then it can only handle the cases INSERT .. ON
CONFLICT UPDATE can cover, which makes it, as far as I can see,
syntactic sugar over what we already have. Maybe it's not entirely -
you migh
On 1 November 2017 at 18:20, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> In Postgres, you can avoid duplicate violations with MERGE by using a
> higher isolation level (these days, those are turned into a
> serialization error at higher isolation levels when no duplicate is
> visible to the xact's snapshot).
So if
If nothing else, anyone needing MERGE can port their MERGE statements to
a DML with DML-containing CTEs...
The generic mapping would be something like this, I think:
WITH
rows AS (SELECT FROM WHERE )
, updated AS (
UPDATE
SET ...
WHERE IN (SELECT FROM rows) /* matched */
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > 2. when summarization is requested on the partial range at the end of a
> > table, we acquire extension lock on the rel, then compute relation size
> > and run summarization with the lock held. This guarantees that we don't
> > miss any pages. This i
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> If VACUUM and brin_summarize_new_values both ignore the partial
>> range, then what else would request this? Can't we just decree
>> that we don't summarize the partial range, period?
> brin_summarize_range() can do it.
So what would happen if we just
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 06:49:18PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 1 November 2017 at 18:20, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > In Postgres, you can avoid duplicate violations with MERGE by using a
> > higher isolation level (these days, those are turned into a
> > serialization error at higher isolation l
Haribabu Kommi writes:
> The changes are fine and now it reports proper live tuples in both
> pg_class and stats. The other issue of continuous vacuum operation
> leading to decrease of number of live tuples is not related to this
> patch and that can be handled separately.
I did not like this pa
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:48:44AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nico Williams writes:
> > With access controls, GUCs could become schema variables, and settings
> > from postgresql.conf could move into the database itself (which I think
> > would be nice).
>
> People re-propose some variant of that e
Nico Williams wrote:
If you want to ignore conflicts arising from concurrency you could
always add an ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING to the INSERT DML in the mapping I
proposed earlier. Thus a MERGE CONCURRENTLY could just do that.
Is there any reason not to map MERGE as I proposed?
Performance, for
Simon Riggs wrote:
So if I understand you correctly, in your view MERGE should just fail
with an ERROR if it runs concurrently with other DML?
That's certainly my opinion on the matter. It seems like that might be
the consensus, too.
Obviously there are things that you as a user can do about
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> If VACUUM and brin_summarize_new_values both ignore the partial
> >> range, then what else would request this? Can't we just decree
> >> that we don't summarize the partial range, period?
>
> > brin_summarize_range() can do it.
>
I haven't really thought about this feature too hard; I just want to
give you a couple of code comments.
I think the catalog structure, and relatedly also the parser structures,
could be made more compact. We currently have condeferrable and
condeferred to represent three valid states (NOT DEFERR
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 12:51:45PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Nico Williams wrote:
> >If you want to ignore conflicts arising from concurrency you could
> >always add an ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING to the INSERT DML in the mapping I
> >proposed earlier. Thus a MERGE CONCURRENTLY could just do tha
On 2 November 2017 at 19:16, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> So if I understand you correctly, in your view MERGE should just fail
>> with an ERROR if it runs concurrently with other DML?
>
>
> That's certainly my opinion on the matter. It seems like that might be
> the consensu
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> CREATE PROCEDURE pdrstest1()
> LANGUAGE SQL
> AS $$
> DECLARE c1 CURSOR WITH RETURN FOR SELECT * FROM cp_test2;
> DECLARE c2 CURSOR WITH RETURN FOR SELECT * FROM cp_test3;
> $$;
>
> CALL pdrstest1();
>
> and that returns those two result sets to the client.
If
On 10/27/17 08:24, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
> I have a problem building binary packages for psycopg2. Binary
> packages ship with their own copies of libpq and libssl;
Aside from the advice of "don't do that" ...
> however if
> another python package links to libssl the library will be imported
>
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 04:20:19PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I haven't really thought about this feature too hard; I just want to
> give you a couple of code comments.
Thanks!
> I think the catalog structure, and relatedly also the parser structures,
> could be made more compact. We curre
On 10/24/17 13:13, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> The reason of this deadlock seems to be clear: ALTER SUBSCRIPTION starts
> transaction at one node and tries to create slot at other node, which waiting
> for completion of all active transaction while building scnapshpot.
> Is there any way to avoi
Simon Riggs wrote:
I think people imagined you had worked out how to make MERGE run
concurrently, I certainly did, but in fact you're just saying you
don't believe it ever should.
I'm certain that they didn't think that at all. But I'll let them speak
for themselves.
That is strange since th
Amit Langote writes:
> On 2017/09/26 16:30, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Cool, let's switch it back to a ready for committer status then.
> Sure, thanks.
Pushed with some cosmetic adjustments --- mostly, making the comments more
explicit about why we need the apparently-redundant assignments to
pd_
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> So what would happen if we just don't summarize partial ranges?
> Index scan would always have to read all the heap pages for that partial
> range. Maybe not a big issue, but when you finish loading a table, it'd
> be good to have a mechanism to summar
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 02:05:19PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >So in your view we should make no attempt to avoid concurrent errors,
> >even when we have the capability to do so (in some cases) and doing so
> >would be perfectly compliant with the SQLStandard.
>
> Yes. T
Nico Williams wrote:
A MERGE mapped to a DML like this:
WITH
updated AS (
UPDATE
SET ...
WHERE
RETURNING
)
, inserted AS (
INSERT INTO
SELECT ...
WHERE NOT IN (SELECT FROM updated) AND ..
ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING -- see bel
On 09/18/2017 07:04 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:> You fixed the first issue,
but I still get the second one:
be-secure-gnutls.c: In function 'get_peer_certificate':
be-secure-gnutls.c:667: error: 'GNUTLS_X509_CRT_LIST_SORT' undeclared
(first use in this function)
be-secure-gnutls.c:667: error: (Each u
Fabien COELHO writes:
> [ pgbench-enum-meta-2.patch ]
Pushed with some trivial cosmetic adjustments (pgindent changed
it more than I did).
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 03:25:48PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Nico Williams wrote:
> >A MERGE mapped to a DML like this:
>
> This is a bad idea. An implementation like this is not at all
> maintainable.
Assuming the DELETE issue can be addressed, why would this not be
maintainable?
> >can
On 2017-02-28 20:08, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> Attached patch is an implementation of SQL/JSON data model from SQL-2016
> standard (ISO/IEC 9075-2:2016(E))
I've faintly started looking into this.
> We created repository for reviewing (ask for write access) -
> https://github.com/postgrespro/sqljson/
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 5:42 AM, Aleksandr Parfenov <
a.parfe...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
> make installcheck-world: not tested
> Implements feature: not tested
> Spec compliant: not tested
> Documentation:
Peter,
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 10/27/17 08:24, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
> > I have a problem building binary packages for psycopg2. Binary
> > packages ship with their own copies of libpq and libssl;
>
> Aside from the advice of "don't do that" ...
>
> >
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
