Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum/visibility is busted

2013-02-08 Thread Pavan Deolasee
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Alvaro Herrera escribió: Alvaro Herrera escribió: Hm, if the foreign key patch is to blame, this sounds like these tuples had a different set of XMAX hint bits and a different Xmax, and they were clobbered by

[HACKERS] Release notes git attribution

2013-02-08 Thread Marti Raudsepp
Hi, The 9.2.3 release notes say: * Fix pg_upgrade's -O/-o options (Bruce Momjian) You got it the wrong way around, he was the one who introduced the bug! ;) I originally found, debugged and provided the fix:

Re: [HACKERS] Release notes git attribution

2013-02-08 Thread Simon Riggs
On 8 February 2013 09:43, Marti Raudsepp ma...@juffo.org wrote: No big deal, it was just one space, but I wanted to voice my disagreement with how Postgres committers don't retain original patch authorship information. I agree its very important to get that right. It's important for the

Re: [HACKERS] Considering Gerrit for CFs

2013-02-08 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Folks, First, thanks for the serious discussion of this. There are obvious tooling gaps (aren't there always?), but I don't really see the model as broken, and I don't think I've been around pgsql-hackers exclusively or

[HACKERS] Too frequent checkpoints ?

2013-02-08 Thread Pavan Deolasee
I was looking at the vacuum/visibility bug that Jeff Janes reported and brought up the server with the data directory he has shared. With his configuration, # - Checkpoints - checkpoint_segments = 1 # in logfile segments, min 1, 16MB each checkpoint_timeout = 30s# range 30s-1h # -

Re: [HACKERS] Comment typo

2013-02-08 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Etsuro Fujita fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote: I found a comment typo. Please find attached a patch. Applied, thanks. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add Makefile dep in bin/scripts for libpgport

2013-02-08 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 12:36 -0500, Phil Sorber wrote: I get the following error when I try to compile just a specific binary in src/bin/scripts: gcc -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wformat-security

Re: [HACKERS] Identity projection

2013-02-08 Thread Amit Kapila
On Friday, February 08, 2013 12:00 AM Tom Lane wrote: Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com writes: There can be 2 ways to remove result node a. Remove the Result plan node in case it is not required - This is same as currently it does for SubqueryScan. We can check if the result plan is

Re: [HACKERS] Alias hstore's ? to ~ so that it works with JDBC

2013-02-08 Thread Seamus Abshere
merlin, Yes, you're correct, my phrasing was bad: all I meant was that it was a conflict, not a bug in Postgres or hstore. I personally don't know of any way around the conflict except changing JDBC or hstore, and I don't think JDBC is gonna change. Deciding not to accommodate JDBC on the

Re: [HACKERS] Alias hstore's ? to ~ so that it works with JDBC

2013-02-08 Thread Seamus Abshere
merlin, I appreciate your perspective and wish that JDBC didn't present this problem. Still, with the rapidly growing adoption of both Postgres and JVM-based languages (thanks Heroku!) - plus the special power of hstore - I think it would be a shame if such a small accommodation could not be

Re: [HACKERS] sepgsql and materialized views

2013-02-08 Thread Kohei KaiGai
2013/2/7 Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com: Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote: So, I'd like to review two options. 1) we uses db_table object class for materialized-views for a while, until selinux-side become ready. Probably, v9.3 will use db_table class then switched at v9.4. 2) we

Re: [HACKERS] [JDBC] JPA + enum == Exception

2013-02-08 Thread Kevin Grittner
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: when attempting to use a prepared statement: ps = con.prepareStatement(insert into enumcast values (?)); ps.setString(1, meh); ps.executeUpdate(); we get a org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: ERROR: column current_mood is of type mood but

Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum/visibility is busted

2013-02-08 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Pavan Deolasee escribió: I'm trying to reason how this bug explains what we saw. In the test, we'd left with duplicate tuples. If I just take index 219 in the table as an example, that tuple had three duplicates. The tuple with CTID (150, 126) had the index pointer and the rest two were

Re: [HACKERS] Considering Gerrit for CFs

2013-02-08 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 2/6/13 4:07 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: I think one of them has, now: Gerrit. http://code.google.com/p/gerrit/ I find Gerrit pretty useful, and I would support trying it out. I suggest, build it and they will come, or not. Let people push their patches into Gerrit and attach the reviews to the

Re: [HACKERS] Considering Gerrit for CFs

2013-02-08 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 2/8/13 5:23 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: But do you have any actual proof that the problem is in we loose reviewers because we're relying on email? Here is one: Me. Just yesterday I downloaded a piece of software that was previously unknown to me from GitHub and found a bug. Within 15

Re: [HACKERS] Release notes git attribution

2013-02-08 Thread Tom Lane
Marti Raudsepp ma...@juffo.org writes: The 9.2.3 release notes say: * Fix pg_upgrade's -O/-o options (Bruce Momjian) You got it the wrong way around, he was the one who introduced the bug! ;) Sorry about that. The release notes are made based on commit-log entries. In this case we had

Re: [HACKERS] Considering Gerrit for CFs

2013-02-08 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On 2/8/13 5:23 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: But do you have any actual proof that the problem is in we loose reviewers because we're relying on email? Here is one: Me. Just yesterday I downloaded a piece of software that

Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum/visibility is busted

2013-02-08 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane escribió: Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes: xid = HeapTupleHeaderGetRawXmax(tuple); ! if (((tuple-t_infomask HEAP_XMAX_IS_MULTI) !MultiXactIdIsValid(xid) !MultiXactIdPrecedes(xid, cutoff_multi)) || ! ((!(tuple-t_infomask

Re: [HACKERS] Considering Gerrit for CFs

2013-02-08 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: I suggest, build it and they will come, or not. Let people push their patches into Gerrit and attach the reviews to the commit fest items. If reviewers then want to use that, it's their choice. We'll see how it goes. I might be misunderstanding what

Re: [HACKERS] Considering Gerrit for CFs

2013-02-08 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 The problem with doing it in-house is that the folks who can work on it and maintain it will be taking time away from developing PostgreSQL. Not sure that using Gerrit solves this. Someone will need to install it, maintain it, document, and

Re: [HACKERS] Too frequent checkpoints ?

2013-02-08 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 02/08/2013 02:37 AM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: I wonder if this is all expected. The database is getting ZERO activity. There are no connections open at this time. The checkpoints are happening at every 30 seconds and new WAL files are being created, AFAIK because the old ones are getting

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Stamp 9.1.8.

2013-02-08 Thread Kevin Grittner
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: if there is any other committer who [wants to receive emails from the packagers list], let me know and I will add you there as well. Hi Magnus, Please add me. Thanks, -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)

Re: [HACKERS] Considering Gerrit for CFs

2013-02-08 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 How would this go with PostgreSQL? You can use the bug form on the web site, but you can't attach any code, so the bug will just linger and ultimately put more burden on a core contributor to deal with the minutiae of developing, testing,

Re: [HACKERS] Alias hstore's ? to ~ so that it works with JDBC

2013-02-08 Thread Kris Jurka
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Seamus Abshere wrote: I personally don't know of any way around the conflict except changing JDBC or hstore, and I don't think JDBC is gonna change. I think changing JDBC is the way to go. Currently JDBC supports escape sequences for cross database portability and it

Re: [HACKERS] Alias hstore's ? to ~ so that it works with JDBC

2013-02-08 Thread Dave Cramer
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Kris Jurka bo...@ejurka.com wrote: On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Seamus Abshere wrote: I personally don't know of any way around the conflict except changing JDBC or hstore, and I don't think JDBC is gonna change. I think changing JDBC is the way to go.

Re: [HACKERS] Too frequent checkpoints ?

2013-02-08 Thread Fujii Masao
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Pavan Deolasee pavan.deola...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder if this is all expected. The database is getting ZERO activity. There are no connections open at this time. The checkpoints are happening at every 30 seconds and new WAL files are being created, AFAIK

Re: [HACKERS] Too frequent checkpoints ?

2013-02-08 Thread Jeff Janes
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Pavan Deolasee pavan.deola...@gmail.com wrote: I was looking at the vacuum/visibility bug that Jeff Janes reported and brought up the server with the data directory he has shared. With his configuration, 3092 2013-02-08 02:30:31.327 PST:LOG: checkpoints

Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum/visibility is busted

2013-02-08 Thread Jeff Janes
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Alvaro Herrera escribió: Alvaro Herrera escribió: Hm, if the foreign key patch is to blame, this sounds like these tuples had a different set of XMAX hint bits and a different Xmax, and they were clobbered by

[HACKERS] DROP OWNED BY fails to drop privileges granted by non-owners (was Re: [GENERAL] Bug, Feature, or what else?)

2013-02-08 Thread Tom Lane
Adrian Klaver adrian.kla...@gmail.com writes: On 02/08/2013 08:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Of course, postgres has other options besides that, of which DROP OWNED BY ak02 is probably the most appropriate here. Or if you really want to get rid of just that grant, SET ROLE TO akretschmer01 and

[HACKERS] Time for an autoconf update

2013-02-08 Thread Tom Lane
Over in Fedora-land they're trying to institute support for ARM64, which among other things means autoconf 2.69 or later: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-February/178273.html We are behind the curve. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Time for an autoconf update

2013-02-08 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 02/08/2013 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Over in Fedora-land they're trying to institute support for ARM64, which among other things means autoconf 2.69 or later: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-February/178273.html We are behind the curve. Is

Re: [HACKERS] Identity projection

2013-02-08 Thread Tom Lane
Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com writes: On Friday, February 08, 2013 12:00 AM Tom Lane wrote: As per my understanding, currently in code wherever Result node can be avoided, it calls function is_projection_capable_plan(), so we can even enhance is_projection_capable_plan() so that it can

Re: [HACKERS] Considering Gerrit for CFs

2013-02-08 Thread Josh Berkus
On 02/08/2013 07:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: I suggest, build it and they will come, or not. Let people push their patches into Gerrit and attach the reviews to the commit fest items. If reviewers then want to use that, it's their choice. We'll see how it

[HACKERS] pending triggers infinite list

2013-02-08 Thread Миша Тюрин
Hi all I've got suspicious behavior for transaction cooked with deferrable trigger. if trigger has update on row of his target table we get infinite recursion without limitation of stack depth. trigger - update - trigger - update - ... ... -- infinite pending list :) - Misha --

Re: [HACKERS] Alias hstore's ? to ~ so that it works with JDBC

2013-02-08 Thread Kris Jurka
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Dave Cramer wrote: Would this be an postgresql specific escape sequence ? I don't think the spec allows for this does it ? Yes, this would be a postgresql jdbc driver specific escape. The spec doesn't have a concept of private escape sequences, but that doesn't seem

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)

2013-02-08 Thread Fujii Masao
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Phil Sorber p...@omniti.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Phil Sorber p...@omniti.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb

Re: [HACKERS] Alias hstore's ? to ~ so that it works with JDBC

2013-02-08 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 02/08/2013 12:41 PM, Kris Jurka wrote: On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Dave Cramer wrote: Would this be an postgresql specific escape sequence ? I don't think the spec allows for this does it ? Yes, this would be a postgresql jdbc driver specific escape. The spec doesn't have a concept of private

[HACKERS] Re: DROP OWNED BY fails to drop privileges granted by non-owners (was Re: [GENERAL] Bug, Feature, or what else?)

2013-02-08 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 02/08/2013 09:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Adrian Klaver adrian.kla...@gmail.com writes: On 02/08/2013 08:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Of course, postgres has other options besides that, of which DROP OWNED BY ak02 is probably the most appropriate here. Or if you really want to get rid of just that

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Stamp 9.1.8.

2013-02-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: if there is any other committer who [wants to receive emails from the packagers list], let me know and I will add you there as well. Hi Magnus, Please add me. Thanks,

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Stamp 9.1.8.

2013-02-08 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote: Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: if there is any other committer who [wants to receive emails from the packagers list], let me know and I

Re: [HACKERS] Considering Gerrit for CFs

2013-02-08 Thread Josh Berkus
I don't see the model as broken either. Just the tooling, which is why I'm looking at tooling. As in, I'm looking for better tooling in order Yet you are suggesting tooling that requires a change in the model? Well, my fantasy is a version of Gerrit which accepts email from -hackers and

Re: [HACKERS] Alias hstore's ? to ~ so that it works with JDBC

2013-02-08 Thread Dave Cramer
That would seem to be the implication. JDBC wouldn't really know anything about hstore. Dave Cramer dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca http://www.credativ.ca On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: On 02/08/2013 12:41 PM, Kris Jurka wrote: On Fri, 8 Feb

Re: [HACKERS] function for setting/getting same timestamp during whole transaction

2013-02-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Miroslav Šimulčík simulcik.m...@gmail.com wrote: Alternately, you might be able to use a custom GUC from a rather smaller PL/PgSQL function. At transaction start, issue: set_config('myapp.trigger_time', '', 't'); This is problem with using custom GUC -

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)

2013-02-08 Thread Phil Sorber
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: No maybe. But I think that all the client commands should follow the same rule. Otherwise a user would get confused when specifying options. I would consider the rest of the apps using it as a consensus. I will make sure

Re: [HACKERS] DROP OWNED BY fails to drop privileges granted by non-owners (was Re: [GENERAL] Bug, Feature, or what else?)

2013-02-08 Thread Tom Lane
Adrian Klaver adrian.kla...@gmail.com writes: I am not sure I am following. Are we talking two different cases here? What I was pointing out was that the non-superuser case seems to be broken almost completely, whereas the superuser case is only broken if the object owner has given away some

[HACKERS] Re: DROP OWNED BY fails to drop privileges granted by non-owners (was Re: [GENERAL] Bug, Feature, or what else?)

2013-02-08 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 02/08/2013 10:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Adrian Klaver adrian.kla...@gmail.com writes: I am not sure I am following. Are we talking two different cases here? What I was pointing out was that the non-superuser case seems to be broken almost completely, whereas the superuser case is only broken

Re: [HACKERS] Time for an autoconf update

2013-02-08 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 02/08/2013 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Over in Fedora-land they're trying to institute support for ARM64, which among other things means autoconf 2.69 or later: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-February/178273.html Is there any good reason not to

Re: [HACKERS] Considering Gerrit for CFs

2013-02-08 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 2/8/13 10:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: I suggest, build it and they will come, or not. Let people push their patches into Gerrit and attach the reviews to the commit fest items. If reviewers then want to use that, it's their choice. We'll see how it

Re: [HACKERS] Considering Gerrit for CFs

2013-02-08 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: On 2/8/13 10:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote: ... I don't object to people using their tools-of-choice to perform reviewing, but we need some way of making sure that the reviews get archived. Gerrit sends me an email every times something happens, so I think

Re: [HACKERS] Time for an autoconf update

2013-02-08 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 2/8/13 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Over in Fedora-land they're trying to institute support for ARM64, which among other things means autoconf 2.69 or later: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-February/178273.html We are behind the curve. What they actually mean is that

[HACKERS] backup.sgml patch that adds information on custom format backups

2013-02-08 Thread Ivan Lezhnjov IV
Hello, I'd like to submit the following patch that extends backup.sgml with a bit of practical but important information. Project: postgresql Patch filename: backup.sgml-cmd-v001.patch The patch extends backup.sgml and adds practical information on custom format backups approach. Basically,

Re: [HACKERS] Considering Gerrit for CFs

2013-02-08 Thread Gavin Flower
I thought this might be of interest... http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2013/02/07/the-document-foundation-announces-libreoffice-4-0/ [...] Improved code contribution thanks to Gerrit: a web based code review system, facilitating the task for projects using Git version control system

Re: [HACKERS] Considering Gerrit for CFs

2013-02-08 Thread Phil Sorber
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On 2/8/13 5:23 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: But do you have any actual proof that the problem is in we loose reviewers because we're relying on email? Here is one: Me. Just yesterday I downloaded a piece of software that

Re: [HACKERS] Considering Gerrit for CFs

2013-02-08 Thread Jeff Janes
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On 2/8/13 5:23 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: But do you have any actual proof that the problem is in we loose reviewers because we're relying on email? Here is one: Me. Just yesterday I downloaded a piece of software that

Re: [HACKERS] Considering Gerrit for CFs

2013-02-08 Thread Jeff Janes
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: 8. Send it to pgsql-hackers 8.a. this requires you to be subscribed to pgsql-hackers. No, it does not. It will get caught in the moderation queue

Re: [HACKERS] Considering Gerrit for CFs

2013-02-08 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Jeff Janes escribió: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: 8. Send it to pgsql-hackers 8.a. this requires you to be subscribed to pgsql-hackers. No, it does not. It will get

Re: [HACKERS] Considering Gerrit for CFs

2013-02-08 Thread Jon Nelson
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Phil Sorber p...@omniti.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On 2/8/13 5:23 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: But do you have any actual proof that the problem is in we loose reviewers because we're relying on email?

[HACKERS] pgsql: Clean up c.h / postgres.h after Assert() move

2013-02-08 Thread Jeff Janes
commit 381d4b70a9854a7b5b9f12d828a0824f8564f1e7 introduced some compiler warnings: assert.c:26: warning: no previous prototype for 'ExceptionalCondition' elog.c: In function 'pg_re_throw': elog.c:1628: warning: implicit declaration of function 'ExceptionalCondition' elog.c:1630: warning:

Re: [HACKERS] sepgsql and materialized views

2013-02-08 Thread Kevin Grittner
Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote: I'll adjust contrib/sepgsql portion to fit materialized-view with matter of existing view. OK.  In case it is of any use to you as a starting point, attached is what I originally had, which seems to be similar to what you describe as your preference. 

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: Clean up c.h / postgres.h after Assert() move

2013-02-08 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Jeff Janes escribió: commit 381d4b70a9854a7b5b9f12d828a0824f8564f1e7 introduced some compiler warnings: assert.c:26: warning: no previous prototype for 'ExceptionalCondition' elog.c: In function 'pg_re_throw': elog.c:1628: warning: implicit declaration of function 'ExceptionalCondition'

Re: [HACKERS] Time for an autoconf update

2013-02-08 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: On 2/8/13 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Over in Fedora-land they're trying to institute support for ARM64, which among other things means autoconf 2.69 or later: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-February/178273.html What they actually

Re: [HACKERS] Incorrect behaviour when using a GiST index on points

2013-02-08 Thread Tom Lane
Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com writes: On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote: ... At internal pages, gist_point_consistent() should implement point @ box with an algorithm near-equivalent to box_overlap(). (As an optional deviation, it may use exact

Re: [HACKERS] Identity projection

2013-02-08 Thread Amit kapila
Friday, February 08, 2013 11:06 PM Tom Lane wrote: Amit Kapila amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com writes: On Friday, February 08, 2013 12:00 AM Tom Lane wrote: As per my understanding, currently in code wherever Result node can be avoided, it calls function is_projection_capable_plan(), so we

Re: [HACKERS] Identity projection

2013-02-08 Thread Amit kapila
Saturday, February 09, 2013 6:56 AM Amit kapila wrote: Friday, February 08, 2013 11:06 PM Tom Lane wrote: Amit Kapila amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com writes: On Friday, February 08, 2013 12:00 AM Tom Lane wrote: As per my understanding, currently in code wherever Result node can be avoided,

Re: [HACKERS] Identity projection

2013-02-08 Thread Tom Lane
Amit kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com writes: if (!is_projection_capable_plan(result_plan) compare_tlist_exprs(sub_tlist, result_plan-targetlist) ) Sorry, the check I suggested in last mail should be as below: if (!is_projection_capable_plan(result_plan) !compare_tlist_exprs(sub_tlist,

Re: [HACKERS] missing rename support

2013-02-08 Thread Tom Lane
Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com writes: [ alter-rule-rename_complete.v2.patch ] Committed with assorted editorialization. Aside from cosmetic issues, the main changes were: * use RangeVarGetRelidExtended with a callback to perform the lookup and locking of the target relation. This is a

Re: [HACKERS] Too frequent checkpoints ?

2013-02-08 Thread Pavan Deolasee
Also, the log says checkpoints are occurring too frequently (0 seconds apart). But that looks wrong too. Checkpoints are really happening at 30 seconds apart and not 0 as the log message claims. I noticed that as well, and I think it might be a regression. I'll run a bisection on it

Re: [HACKERS] Considering Gerrit for CFs

2013-02-08 Thread Daniel Farina
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: This is a few too many steps, and certainly appears completely broken to any newcomer. I agree it's way too many step. Several of those can certainly