Re: [HACKERS] Review of Row Level Security

2012/12/7 Simon Riggs : > On 5 December 2012 11:16, Kohei KaiGai wrote: > >>> Oracle defaults to putting VPD on all event types: INSERT, UPDATE, >>> DELETE, SELECT. ISTM we should be doing the same, not just say "we can >>> add an INSERT trigger if you want". >>> >>> Adding a trigger just begs the

Re: [HACKERS] Review of Row Level Security

2012/12/7 Simon Riggs : > On 5 December 2012 11:16, Kohei KaiGai wrote: > >>> * TRUNCATE works, and allows you to remove all rows of a table, even >>> ones you can't see to run a DELETE on. Er... >>> >> It was my oversight. My preference is to rewrite TRUNCATE command >> with DELETE statement in c

Re: [HACKERS] Review: Patch to compute Max LSN of Data Pages

On Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:44 AM Tom Lane wrote: Amit kapila writes: > On Friday, December 07, 2012 7:43 PM Muhammad Usama wrote: >>> Although I am thinking why are you disallowing the absolute path of file. >>> Any particular reason? >> The reason to disallow absolute path is that, we nee

Re: [HACKERS] parallel pg_dump

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 11:13:30AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > I am working on it when I get a chance, but keep getting hammered. > > I'd love somebody else to review it too. > > FYI, I will be posting pg_upgrade performance numbers usin

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

On 20.11.2012 08:22, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > Hi, > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Tomas Vondra > wrote: > > On 19.11.2012 11:59, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I gone through the discussion for this patch and here is my review: > > > > T

Re: [HACKERS] review: pgbench - aggregation of info written into log

Hi, attached is a v5 of this patch. Details below: On 8.12.2012 16:33, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi Tomas, > > On 2012-11-27 14:55:59 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: >>> attached is a v4 of the patch. There are not many changes, mostly some >>> simple tidying up, except for handling the Windows. > > A

[HACKERS] PGCon 2013 - call for papers

PGCon 2013 will be on 23-24 May 2013 at University of Ottawa. This year, we are planning to have an un-conference day around PGCon. This is currently being scheduled. More information on the un-conference will be available within a few weeks. NOTE: the un-conference day content will be set on th

Re: [HACKERS] Proof of concept: auto updatable views [Review of Patch]

Dean Rasheed writes: > Attached is a rebased patch using new OIDs. Applied after a fair amount of hacking. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/p

Re: [HACKERS] autovacuum truncate exclusive lock round two

On 12/6/2012 12:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Jan Wieck wrote: That sort of "dynamic" approach would indeed be interesting. But I fear that it is going to be complex at best. The amount of time spent in scanning heavily depends on the visibility map. The initial vac

Re: [HACKERS] Commits 8de72b and 5457a1 (COPY FREEZE)

Simon, * Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > Visibility of pre-hinted data is an issue and because of that we > previously agreed that it would be allowed only when explicitly > requested by the user, which has been implemented as the FREEZE option > on COPY. This then makes it identical

Re: [HACKERS] parallel pg_dump

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 11:13:30AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 12/08/2012 11:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > >Hi, > > > >On 2012-10-15 17:13:10 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >>On 10/13/2012 10:46 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >>>On 09/17/2012 10:01 PM, Joachim Wieland wrote: > On Mon, Jun

Re: [HACKERS] Sketch of a Hook into the Logging Collector

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Daniel Farina wrote: > * A contrib, pg_logcollectdup. This contrib lets one forward logs to > a named pipe specified in postgresql.conf. I have revised this part in the attached patch. It's some error handling in a case of user error, and the previous demo scr

[HACKERS] Sketch of a Hook into the Logging Collector

Hello all, I have some needs that seem to support changing Postgres slightly to give user programs a lot more power over how to process logging output that neither the log collector nor the syslog output can well-satisfy as-is. I am approaching this from the angle of increasing power by exposing

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework

Boszormenyi Zoltan writes: > Thanks. I just tried the patch on current GIT HEAD and > gives some offset warnings but no rejects. Also, it compiles > without warnings and still works as it should. > Should I post a new patch that applies cleanly? Offsets are not a problem --- if you tried to keep

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework

2012-12-08 15:30 keltezéssel, Andres Freund írta: On 2012-10-18 22:40:15 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: 2012-10-18 20:08 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta: Alvaro Herrera writes: Boszormenyi Zoltan escribió: this is the latest one, fixing a bug in the accounting of per-statement lock timeout hand

Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2012-11 Progress

Hi Noah, On 2012-12-08 09:06:01 -0500, Noah Misch wrote: > We're entering the last planned week of the CF. Apart from a 72-hour period > in mid-November, some CF has remained in-progress continuously for the last > 176 days. With 64 out of the 82 current patches unresolved, we're on track to > a

Re: [HACKERS] review: pgbench - aggregation of info written into log

On 8.12.2012 16:33, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi Tomas, > > On 2012-11-27 14:55:59 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: >>> attached is a v4 of the patch. There are not many changes, mostly some >>> simple tidying up, except for handling the Windows. > > After a quick look I am not sure what all the talk abo

Re: [HACKERS] parallel pg_dump

On 12/08/2012 11:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote: Hi, On 2012-10-15 17:13:10 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 10/13/2012 10:46 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 09/17/2012 10:01 PM, Joachim Wieland wrote: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Joachim Wieland wrote: Attached is a rebased version of the pa

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: optimized DROP of multiple tables within a transaction

On 8.12.2012 15:49, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 8.12.2012 15:26, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2012-12-06 23:38:59 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: >>> I've re-run the tests with the current patch on my home workstation, and >>> the results are these (again 10k tables, dropped either one-by-one or in >>> batch

Re: [HACKERS] Failing SSL connection due to weird interaction with openssl

On 2012-11-26 21:45:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > I gather that this is supposed to be back-patched to all supported > > branches. > > FWIW, I don't like that patch any better than Robert does. It seems > as likely to do harm as good. If there are places where libpq itse

Re: [HACKERS] Proof of concept: auto updatable views [Review of Patch]

On 8 December 2012 15:21, Tom Lane wrote: > Continuing to work on this ... I found multiple things I didn't like > about the permission-field update code. Attached are some heavily > commented extracts from the code as I've changed it. Does anybody > object to either the code or the objectives g

Re: [HACKERS] parallel pg_dump

Hi, On 2012-10-15 17:13:10 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 10/13/2012 10:46 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > >On 09/17/2012 10:01 PM, Joachim Wieland wrote: > >>On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Joachim Wieland > >>wrote: > >>>Attached is a rebased version of the parallel pg_dump patch. > >>At

Re: [HACKERS] review: pgbench - aggregation of info written into log

Hi Tomas, On 2012-11-27 14:55:59 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > attached is a v4 of the patch. There are not many changes, mostly some > > simple tidying up, except for handling the Windows. After a quick look I am not sure what all the talk about windows is about? instr_time.h seems to provide

Re: [HACKERS] Proof of concept: auto updatable views [Review of Patch]

Continuing to work on this ... I found multiple things I didn't like about the permission-field update code. Attached are some heavily commented extracts from the code as I've changed it. Does anybody object to either the code or the objectives given in the comments? rega

Re: [HACKERS] Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

Andres Freund writes: > The issue I raised above is just about keeping the pg_depend entries > pointing to something valid... And not changing the indexes pg_class.oid > seems to be the easiest solution for that. Yeah, we would have to update pg_depend, pg_constraint, maybe some other places if w

Re: [HACKERS] SP-GiST for ranges based on 2d-mapping and quad-tree

Hi Alexander, On 2012-11-04 11:41:48 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 12:47 +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > > Right version of patch is attached. > > > * In bounds_adjacent, there's no reason to flip the labels back. > * Comment should indicate more explicitly that bounds_adja

Re: [HACKERS] Statistics and selectivity estimation for ranges

On 2012-11-05 22:10:50 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 11:12 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > What's going on with this patch? I haven't seen any activity in a > > while. Should I just move this to the next commitfest? > > Sorry, I dropped the ball here. I will still review it, w

Re: [HACKERS] gistchoose vs. bloat

Hi, On 2012-11-02 12:54:33 +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Jeff Davis wrote: > > > On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 15:09 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Jeff, do you think we need more review of this patch? > > > > In the patch, it refers to rd_options without checki

Re: [HACKERS] Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

On 2012-12-08 09:40:43 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2012-12-08 21:24:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> So whatever the method used for swapping: relfilenode switch or relname > >> switch, you need to modify the pg_class entry of the old and new indexes. > > > The point

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: optimized DROP of multiple tables within a transaction

On 8.12.2012 15:26, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2012-12-06 23:38:59 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> I've re-run the tests with the current patch on my home workstation, and >> the results are these (again 10k tables, dropped either one-by-one or in >> batches of 100). >> >> 1) unpatched >> >> dropping

Re: [HACKERS] tuplesort memory usage: grow_memtuples

Hi, On 2012-11-21 14:52:18 -0800, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > > > So what's next here? Do you want to work on these issue some more? > > Or does Jeff? > > This has been rewritten enough that I no longer feel much ownership of it. > > I'd prefer to

Re: [HACKERS] Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

Andres Freund writes: > On 2012-12-08 21:24:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> So whatever the method used for swapping: relfilenode switch or relname >> switch, you need to modify the pg_class entry of the old and new indexes. > The point is that with a relname switch the pg_class.oid of the in

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework

On 2012-10-18 22:40:15 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: > 2012-10-18 20:08 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta: > >Alvaro Herrera writes: > >>Boszormenyi Zoltan escribió: > >>>this is the latest one, fixing a bug in the accounting > >>>of per-statement lock timeout handling and tweaking > >>>some comments.

Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: optimized DROP of multiple tables within a transaction

On 2012-12-06 23:38:59 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 6.12.2012 05:47, Shigeru Hanada wrote: > >> I've done a simple benchmark on my laptop with 2GB shared buffers, it's > >> attached in the drop-test.py (it's a bit messy, but it works). > > [snip] > >> With those parameters, I got these numbers o

[HACKERS] CommitFest 2012-11 Progress

We're entering the last planned week of the CF. Apart from a 72-hour period in mid-November, some CF has remained in-progress continuously for the last 176 days. With 64 out of the 82 current patches unresolved, we're on track to again see no gap between CF 2012-11 and CF 2013-01. The process as

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] pg_ping utility

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Phil Sorber wrote: >> >> Something I was just thinking about while testing this again. I >> mentioned the issue before about someone meaning to put -v and putting >> -V instead and it being a potential sourc

Re: [HACKERS] Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

On 2012-12-08 21:24:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2012-12-07 12:01:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Simon Riggs writes: > > > > On 7 December 2012 12:37, Michael Paquier > > wrote: > > > >> - There is still a problem with toast ind

Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] pg_ping utility

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Phil Sorber wrote: > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Michael Paquier > > OK. Let's do that and then mark this patch as ready for committer. > > Thanks, > > Those changes have been made. > Cool. Thanks. > Something I was just thinking about while testing this aga

Re: [HACKERS] Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2012-12-07 12:01:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Simon Riggs writes: > > > On 7 December 2012 12:37, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > >> - There is still a problem with toast indexes. If the concurrent > reindex of > > >> a toast index fails fo

Re: [HACKERS] Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 7 December 2012 12:37, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > - There is still a problem with toast indexes. If the concurrent reindex > of > > a toast index fails for a reason or another, pg_relation will finish with > > invalid toast index entries

Re: [HACKERS] Commits 8de72b and 5457a1 (COPY FREEZE)

On 7 December 2012 23:51, Stephen Frost wrote: > Jeff, > > * Jeff Davis (pg...@j-davis.com) wrote: >> Most of your concerns seem to be related to freezing, and I'm mostly >> interested in HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED optimizations. So I think we're >> talking past each other. > > My concern is about this p