Re: [HACKERS] Pg V10: Patch for bug in bonjour support

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Thomas Munro writes: >> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Is the AC_SEARCH_LIBS configure call needed to make PG build with the >>> FreeBSD package? > >>

Re: [HACKERS] Pg V10: Patch for bug in bonjour support

Thomas Munro writes: > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Is the AC_SEARCH_LIBS configure call needed to make PG build with the >> FreeBSD package? > Yes. My take is that the commit was correct: the library is needed > for

Re: [HACKERS] Pg V10: Patch for bug in bonjour support

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Is the AC_SEARCH_LIBS configure call needed to make PG build with the > FreeBSD package? Yes. My take is that the commit was correct: the library is needed for --with-bonjour to work on non-macOS systems, and apparently it

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] Faster processing at Gather node

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017-11-06 10:56:43 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Andres Freund wrote >> > On 2017-11-05 01:05:59 +0100, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> skip-gather-project-v1.patch

Re: [HACKERS] Pg V10: Patch for bug in bonjour support

Thomas Munro writes: > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hm, the library on F25 is also avahi's. Digging in the archives, I find >> this old thread reporting the same behavior: >>

Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Amit Khandekar wrote: > On 8 November 2017 at 07:55, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> The changes to trigger.c still make me

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Overestimated filter cost and its mitigation

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> I think it would be a good idea, as Thomas says, to order the qual >> clauses at an earlier stage and then remember our decision. However, >> we have to think about whether that's

Re: [HACKERS] Hang in pldebugger after git commit : 98a64d0

On 2016-12-16 23:04:13 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >> BTW, I suggest this rewritten comment: > >> > >> /*-- > >> * FD_READ events are edge-triggered on Windows per > >> * > >>

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

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Asim Praveen wrote: > Indeed, the assertion tripped during WAL replay on the standby. This was > caught by TAP tests under src/test/recovery. The assertion is now fixed so > that WAL replay is exempt from the check. Please find the new patch

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] A hook for session start

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> - Let's restrict the logging to a role name instead of a database >> name, and let's parametrize it with a setting in

Re: [HACKERS] Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal of superuser() checks

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Vaishnavi Prabakaran >> wrote: >>> I moved the cf entry to "ready for committer", and though my vote is

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] fix wrong create table statement in documentation

On 2017/11/09 7:21, Tom Lane wrote: > jotpe writes: >> In the current documentation [1] this create table statement is listed: >> CREATE TABLE measurement_y2008m01 PARTITION OF measurement >> FOR VALUES FROM ('2008-01-01') TO ('2008-02-01') >> TABLESPACE fasttablespace

Re: [HACKERS] Pg V10: Patch for bug in bonjour support

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Luke Lonergan writes: >> On 11/8/17, 3:00 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote: >>> BTW, when I try this on Fedora 25, it builds cleanly but the feature >>> doesn't seem to work --- I get this at

Re: [HACKERS] Pg V10: Patch for bug in bonjour support

Hey Tom, On 11/8/17, 4:39 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote: So now I'm wondering if you know something the rest of us don't about how to configure the platform for bonjour to work. Nope – in fact, I hadn’t tried to use Bonjour on this instance, but had only enabled it thinking

Re: [HACKERS] Pg V10: Patch for bug in bonjour support

Luke Lonergan writes: > On 11/8/17, 3:00 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote: >> BTW, when I try this on Fedora 25, it builds cleanly but the feature >> doesn't seem to work --- I get this at postmaster start: >> ... >> I wonder which libdns_sd you are using. >

[HACKERS] postgresql v9.5 and SSL: LOG: could not accept SSL connection: tlsv1 alert unknown ca

Hi all, I have a working postgresql v9.3 installation running on out-of-the-box Ubuntu Trusty, and it works fine. The job at hand: replace the server with postgresql v9.5 on out-of-the-box Ubuntu Xenial, but this does not work fine. I am getting the problem described on this page:

Re: [HACKERS] Transaction control in procedures

On 31 October 2017 at 15:38, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Here is a patch that implements transaction control in PL/Python > procedures. (This patch goes on top of "SQL procedures" patch v1.) The patch is incredibly short for such a feature, which is probably a

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

Hi Michael On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > Did you really test WAL replay? This still ignores that PageGetLSN is > as well taken in some code paths, like recovery, where actions on the > page are guaranteed to be serialized, like during

Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 10/29/17 08:50, Michael Paquier wrote: >> I spotted a couple of other things while looking at your patches and >> the code tree. >> >> - return (ginCompareItemPointers(>itemptr, iptr) > 0) ? TRUE :

Re: [HACKERS] Pg V10: Patch for bug in bonjour support

# dpkg -S !$ dpkg -S /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libdns_sd.so.1.0.0 libavahi-compat-libdnssd1:amd64: /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libdns_sd.so.1.0.0 Also:   ii libavahi-compat-libdnssd1:amd640.6.32-1ubuntu1 amd64Avahi Apple Bonjour

Re: [HACKERS] Pg V10: Patch for bug in bonjour support

Hi Tom – works for me on Linux (Ubuntu)… - Luke *** /home/llonergan/archive/configure.in2017-11-08 14:17:56.804891827 -0800 --- configure.in2017-11-08 14:15:58.961186149 -0800 *** *** 1293,1298 --- 1293,1299 if test

Re: [HACKERS] Pg V10: Patch for bug in bonjour support

Luke Lonergan writes: > Hi Tom – works for me on Linux (Ubuntu)… BTW, when I try this on Fedora 25, it builds cleanly but the feature doesn't seem to work --- I get this at postmaster start: *** WARNING *** The program 'postgres' uses the Apple Bonjour compatibility layer

Re: [HACKERS] Pg V10: Patch for bug in bonjour support

Luke Lonergan writes: > Hi Tom – works for me on Linux (Ubuntu)… > + AC_SEARCH_LIBS([DNSServiceRefSockFD],[dns_sd]) Pushed with an error message added. I also took the trouble to standardize the syntax of our various AC_SEARCH_LIBS calls --- they weren't very consistent

Re: [HACKERS] Exclude pg_internal.init from base backup

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 11/7/17 19:58, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Haribabu Kommi >> wrote: >>> Thanks for the correction. I was not much aware of SGML markup usage.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] fix wrong create table statement in documentation

jotpe writes: > In the current documentation [1] this create table statement is listed: > CREATE TABLE measurement_y2008m01 PARTITION OF measurement > FOR VALUES FROM ('2008-01-01') TO ('2008-02-01') > TABLESPACE fasttablespace > WITH (parallel_workers = 4); Yup,

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > I complained about multiple related things, I'm not exactly sure what > exactly you're referring to here: > - The fact that HeapTupleHeaderData's are commonly iterated over in > reverse order is bad for performance. For

Re: [HACKERS] Early locking option to parallel backup

On 11/06/2017 12:30 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Lucas (luca...@gmail.com) wrote: pg_dump was taking more than 24 hours to complete in one of my databases. I begin to research alternatives. Parallel backup reduced the backup time to little less than a hour, but it failed almost every time because

Re: [HACKERS] Pg V10: Patch for bug in bonjour support

Thomas Munro writes: > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Luke Lonergan wrote: >> + AC_CHECK_LIB(dns_sd, DNSServiceRefSockFD, [], [AC_MSG_ERROR([library >> 'dns_sd' is required for Bonjour])]) > It lives in libSystem.dylib (implicitly linked)

Re: [HACKERS] OpenTemporaryFile() vs resowner.c

Thomas Munro writes: > Andres, Robert and Peter G rightly complained[1] that my shared > temporary file patch opens a file, then calls > ResourceOwnerEnlargeFiles() which can fail due to lack of memory, and > then registers the file handle to make sure we don't leak

Re: [HACKERS] Pg V10: Patch for bug in bonjour support

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Luke Lonergan wrote: > if test "$with_bonjour" = yes ; then > > AC_CHECK_HEADER(dns_sd.h, [], [AC_MSG_ERROR([header file is > required for Bonjour])]) > > + AC_CHECK_LIB(dns_sd, DNSServiceRefSockFD, [], [AC_MSG_ERROR([library >

[HACKERS] Pg V10: Patch for bug in bonjour support

Hi all – I’m doing some geo analysis and was excited to see all the new features in V10 – particularly the declarative partitioning support! Found a tiny bug in the build for Bonjour – patch below: *** configure.in  2017-10-02 14:09:15.0 -0700 ---

Re: [HACKERS] Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal of superuser() checks

Michael Paquier writes: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Vaishnavi Prabakaran > wrote: >> I moved the cf entry to "ready for committer", and though my vote is for >> keeping the existing API behavior with write implying read, I let the

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

On 2017-11-08 12:02:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > BTW, it strikes me that in considering the rebuild-the-page approach, > we should not have blinders on and just measure the speed of > PageRepairFragmentation. Rather, we should take a look at what happens > subsequently given a physically-ordered

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

2017-11-08 20:02 GMT+03:00 Tom Lane : > > Claudio Freire writes: > > What's perhaps not clear is whether there are better ideas. Like > > rebuilding the page as Tom proposes, which doesn't seem like a bad > > idea. Bucket sort already is O(bytes), just

[HACKERS] [PATCH] fix wrong create table statement in documentation

In the current documentation [1] this create table statement is listed: CREATE TABLE measurement_y2008m01 PARTITION OF measurement FOR VALUES FROM ('2008-01-01') TO ('2008-02-01') TABLESPACE fasttablespace WITH (parallel_workers = 4); But that did not work: 2017-11-06 22:26:11.757

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II

Hi, @@ -747,7 +747,7 @@ try_hashjoin_path(PlannerInfo *root, * never have any output pathkeys, per comments in create_hashjoin_path. */ initial_cost_hashjoin(root, , jointype, hashclauses, - outer_path, inner_path, extra);

Re: [HACKERS] need info about extensibility in other databases

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Li Song wrote: > Hi, > > When is the English version of "GiST programming tutorial" available? Well, I wrote it many years ago, so it needs to be updated. For now, you can use google translate, which seems works fine

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] A hook for session start

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > + /* Hook just normal backends */ > + if (session_end_hook && MyBackendId != InvalidBackendId) > + (*session_end_hook) (); > I have been wondering about the necessity of this restriction. > Couldn't

Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 11/8/17 11:11, Merlin Moncure wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Peter Eisentraut >> wrote: >>> I have already submitted a separate patch that addresses these

Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures

On 11/8/17 11:11, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> I have already submitted a separate patch that addresses these questions. > > Maybe I'm obtuse, but I'm not seeing it? In very interested in the > general

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

Claudio Freire writes: > What's perhaps not clear is whether there are better ideas. Like > rebuilding the page as Tom proposes, which doesn't seem like a bad > idea. Bucket sort already is O(bytes), just as memcopy, only it has a > lower constant factor (it's bytes/256 in

Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use

On 10/29/17 08:50, Michael Paquier wrote: > I had a look at this patch series. Patches 1, 2 (macos headers indeed > show that NSUNLINKMODULE_OPTION_NONE is set to 0x0), 3 to 7 look fine > to me. Committed 4 and 5 together. > I spotted a couple of other things while looking at your patches and >

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> What I'm getting from the standard pgbench measurements, on both machines, >>> is that this patch might be

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I don't remember any more just how much faster qsort_tuple() and > qsort_ssup() are than plain qsort(), but it was significant enough to > convince me to commit 337b6f5ecf05b21b5e997986884d097d60e4e3d0... IIRC,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting

Thank you for fixing. On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 09:00:43PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > > > +Datum > > > +custom_subscripting_parse(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) > > > +{ > > > + boolisAssignment = PG_GETARG_BOOL(0); > > > > Here isAssignment is unused variable, so it could be

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

Robert Haas writes: > Just to throw a random idea out here, we currently have > gen_qsort_tuple.pl producing qsort_tuple() and qsort_ssup(). Maybe it > could be modified to also produce a specialized qsort_itemids(). That > might be noticeably faster that our

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I do not think there is any change here that can be proven to always be a > win. Certainly the original patch, which proposes to replace an O(n log n) > sort algorithm with an O(n^2) one, should not be thought to be that. >

Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I have already submitted a separate patch that addresses these questions. Maybe I'm obtuse, but I'm not seeing it? In very interested in the general approach to transaction management; if you've described

Re: [HACKERS] Exclude pg_internal.init from base backup

On 11/7/17 19:58, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: >> Thanks for the correction. I was not much aware of SGML markup usage. >> While building the documentation, it raises an warning message of "empty >> end-tag". >> So I

Re: [HACKERS] Horrible CREATE DATABASE Performance in High Sierra

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 10/7/17 16:46, Tom Lane wrote: >> Accordingly I propose the attached patch. If anyone's interested in >> experimenting on other platforms, we might be able to refine/complicate >> the FLUSH_DISTANCE selection further, but I think

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> What I'm getting from the standard pgbench measurements, on both machines, >> is that this patch might be a couple percent slower than HEAD, but that is >> barely above the noise

Re: [HACKERS] Horrible CREATE DATABASE Performance in High Sierra

On November 8, 2017 7:31:17 AM PST, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >On 10/7/17 16:46, Tom Lane wrote: >> I wrote: >>> Current status is that I've filed a bug report with Apple and am >waiting >>> to see their response before deciding what to do next. If they fix

Re: [HACKERS] Horrible CREATE DATABASE Performance in High Sierra

On 10/7/17 16:46, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> Current status is that I've filed a bug report with Apple and am waiting >> to see their response before deciding what to do next. If they fix the >> issue promptly then there's little need for us to do anything. > Accordingly I propose the

Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures

On 11/8/17 09:23, Merlin Moncure wrote: > I do wonder how transaction control could be added later. > > The last time I (lightly) looked at this, I was starting to think that > working transaction control into the SPI interface was the wrong > approach; pl/pgsql would have to adopt a very

Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures

On 11/8/17 09:33, Pavel Stehule wrote: > We can create auto session variable STATUS. This variable can be 0 > if procedure was returned without explicit RETURN value. Or it can > hold different value specified by RETURN expr. > > This value can be read by GET DIAGNOSTICS xxx =

Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures

On 11/6/17 16:27, Simon Riggs wrote: > You mention PARALLEL SAFE is not used for procedures. Isn't it an > architectural restriction that procedures would not be able to execute > in parallel? (At least this year) I'm not sure what you are referring to here. I don't think the functionality I'm

Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 10/31/17 14:23, Tom Lane wrote: >> Why not use VOIDOID for the prorettype value? > We need a way to distinguish functions that are callable by SELECT and > procedures that are callable by CALL. Do procedures of this ilk belong in

Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures

On 08.11.2017 17:23, Merlin Moncure wrote: On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: - Transaction control in procedure bodies This feature is really key, since it enables via SQL lots of things that are not possible without external coding,

[HACKERS] Proposal: ALTER EXTENSION SET OPTION

Hi all; One of the annoyances we currently deal with regarding analytics extensions in a PG environment with mixed versions is there is no facility right now to conditionally support certain modifications to functions that might be required to make certain features work properly. The case that

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

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 4:42 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: I suggest that a good thing to do more or less immediately, regardless of when this patch ends up being ready, would be to insert an

Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures

2017-11-08 15:31 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule : > > > 2017-11-08 15:23 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut com>: > >> On 10/31/17 16:50, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> > Not sure if disabling RETURN is good idea. I can imagine so optional >> > returning

Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures

2017-11-08 15:23 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com>: > On 10/31/17 16:50, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > Not sure if disabling RETURN is good idea. I can imagine so optional > > returning something like int status can be good idea. Cheaper than > > raising a exception. > >

Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > - Transaction control in procedure bodies This feature is really key, since it enables via SQL lots of things that are not possible without external coding, including: *) very long running processes in

Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures

On 10/31/17 16:50, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Not sure if disabling RETURN is good idea. I can imagine so optional > returning something like int status can be good idea. Cheaper than > raising a exception. We could allow a RETURN without argument in PL/pgSQL, if you just want to exit early. That

Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures

On 10/31/17 14:23, Tom Lane wrote: > Putting 0 in prorettype seems like a pretty bad idea. It seemed like the natural thing to do, since we use a zero OID to indicate "nothing" in many other places. > Why not use VOIDOID for the prorettype value? We need a way to distinguish functions that are

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

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > We do want to generate it later when there isn't inheritance involved, > but only if there is a single rel involved (simple_rel_array_size > <=2). The rule is something like this, we will generate the gather > paths at

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

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> This is required to prohibit generating gather path for top rel in >> case of inheritence (Append node) at this place (we want to generate >>

Re: [HACKERS] need info about extensibility in other databases

Hi, When is the English version of "GiST programming tutorial" available? Regards, Song -- Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-hackers-f1928748.html -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > What I'm getting from the standard pgbench measurements, on both machines, > is that this patch might be a couple percent slower than HEAD, but that is > barely above the noise floor so I'm not too sure about it. Hmm. It

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

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > This is required to prohibit generating gather path for top rel in > case of inheritence (Append node) at this place (we want to generate > it later when scan/join target is available). OK, but why don't we want to

Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

Hi Rajkumar, Thanks for testing. On 2017/11/08 15:52, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi wrote: > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: > >> Attached updated set of patches, including the fix to make the new pruning >> code handle Boolean partitioning. >> > >