[HACKERS] Compilation of pg_recvlogical on Windows

Hi all, I noticed that pg_recvlogical is not currently compiled on Windows when using the msvc scripts. The patch attached corrects that. Regards, -- Michael commit b552fbe5bc5ef705ee5a320f1afae66b40dcaedd Author: Michael Paquier Date: Thu Apr 24 15:46:26 2014 +0900 Support compilation of

Re: [HACKERS] bgworker crashed or not?

On 04/17/2014 08:35 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 04/17/2014 04:47 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> >> Well the logging is just too spammy in general when it comes to dynamic >> bgworkers but that's easy to fix in the future, no need to make >> decisions for 9.4. > > Agreed - it's the *API* that we need

Re: [HACKERS] Runing DBT2 on Postgresql

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 2:33 AM, Rohit Goyal wrote: > I am trying to install dbt2 on postgresql database. > > cmake(configure) command work fine and but make command(build) give an error > given below. I have no idea about how to solve it ld has become less tolerant of certain flag orderings over

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 08:27:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > David Fetter writes: > > Is there any good reason not to roll native UUID generation into > > our standard distribution? > > It's already there (as of 9.4) in pg_crypto. Sorry I wasn't clear enough. Since contrib/pgcrypto is a module t

Re: [HACKERS] Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:25:35PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-04-21 17:21:20 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 02:08:51PM -0700, Joshua Drake wrote: > > > If the community had more *BSD presence I think it would be great > > > but it isn't all that viable at this po

Re: [HACKERS] Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD

> On Apr 22, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > >> On 04/22/2014 06:43 PM, Mark Wong wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Joshua D. Drake > > wrote: >> >> >>On 04/22/2014 08:26 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >>I'm going away tomorrow fo

Re: [HACKERS] Review: ECPG FETCH readahead

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 12:15:41AM +0200, Antonin Houska wrote: > Whether this review is enough to move the patch to "ready for committer" > - I tend to let the next CFM decide. (I don't find it productive to > ignite another round of discussion about kinds of reviews - already saw > some.) In tod

Re: [HACKERS] extension_control_path

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On Mon, 2014-03-10 at 09:36 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: >> Please find attached the v2 version of the patch, including fixes for >> the crash and documentation aspects you've listed before. > Do we want to get this version committed (will need some small tweaks), > o

Re: [HACKERS] extension_control_path

* Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote: > On Mon, 2014-03-10 at 09:36 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > > Please find attached the v2 version of the patch, including fixes for > > the crash and documentation aspects you've listed before. > > Do we want to get this version committed (will need s

Re: [HACKERS] extension_control_path

On Mon, 2014-03-10 at 09:36 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Please find attached the v2 version of the patch, including fixes for > the crash and documentation aspects you've listed before. Do we want to get this version committed (will need some small tweaks), or do we want to wait for the next

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table

David Fetter writes: > Is there any good reason not to roll native UUID generation into our > standard distribution? It's already there (as of 9.4) in pg_crypto. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to

Re: [HACKERS] Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD

>> >> Included is the graph (from PostgreSQL Enterprise Consortium's 2014 >> >> report page 13: https://www.pgecons.org/downloads/43). I see up to 14% >> >> degration (at 128 concurrent users) comparing with 9.2. >> > >> > That URL returns 'Forbidden'... >> >> Sorry for this. I sent a problem repor

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 12:24:21PM -0700, David Fetter wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Josh Berkus wrote: > > > On 04/23/2014 07:43 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > > > I can propose contrib PostgreNoSQL providing following: > > > > 1) Table postgres as

Re: [HACKERS] Review: ECPG FETCH readahead

On 04/23/2014 05:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Antonin Houska wrote: >> I haven't been too familiar with the ECPG internals so far but tried to >> do my best. > > I'm afraid we're stuck on this patch until Michael has time to review > it, or some other committer wants to acquire maintainership ri

Re: [HACKERS] Review: ECPG FETCH readahead

[Now I'm only replying where my explanation seems useful. If you expect anything else, please remind me.] On 04/23/2014 06:41 PM, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: > > All exported ECPG functions returns bool. IIRC the code generated by > "EXEC SQL WHENEVER " makes use > of the returned value. ok >> >>

[HACKERS] All caught up

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 07:42:06AM +, Albe Laurenz wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> I suggest the attached documentation fix. > > > > Patch applied and backpatched to 9.3. Thanks. > > What would PostgreSQL do without Bruce who undertakes the > Herculean task of making sure that nothing get

Re: [HACKERS] MultiXactId error after upgrade to 9.3.4

On 2014-04-23 16:30:05 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Andres Freund wrote: > > > I think this patch is a seriously bad idea. For one, it's not actually > > doing anything about the problem - the tuple can be accessed without > > freezing getting involved. > > Normal access other than freeze is no

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade and epoch

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Sergey, are you seeing a problem only because you are > interacting with other systems that didn't reset their epoch? I faced this after upgrading clusters with PgQ Skytools3 installed only. They didn't interact with any other systems. --

Re: [HACKERS] MultiXactId error after upgrade to 9.3.4

Andres Freund wrote: > I think this patch is a seriously bad idea. For one, it's not actually > doing anything about the problem - the tuple can be accessed without > freezing getting involved. Normal access other than freeze is not a problem, because other code paths do check for HEAP_XMAX_INVAL

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > > On 04/23/2014 07:43 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > > I can propose contrib PostgreNoSQL providing following: > > > 1) Table postgres as you proposed. > > > 2) Functions: get_postgres(id intgeger) returns jso

Re: [HACKERS] MultiXactId error after upgrade to 9.3.4

On April 23, 2014 8:51:21 PM CEST, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:42:14PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> > > > I still don't know under what circumstances this situation >could arise. >> > > > This seems most strange to me. I would wonder about this to

Re: [HACKERS] MultiXactId error after upgrade to 9.3.4

Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:42:14PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > I still don't know under what circumstances this situation could arise. > > > > This seems most strange to me. I would wonder about this to be just > > > > papering over a different bug elsewhere, except

Re: [HACKERS] MultiXactId error after upgrade to 9.3.4

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:42:14PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > I still don't know under what circumstances this situation could arise. > > > This seems most strange to me. I would wonder about this to be just > > > papering over a different bug elsewhere, except that we know this tuple > >

Re: [HACKERS] MultiXactId error after upgrade to 9.3.4

Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:01:02PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2014-03-31 08:54:53 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > My conclusion here is that some part of the code is failing to examine > > > > XMAX_INVALID before looking at the value s

Re: [HACKERS] MultiXactId error after upgrade to 9.3.4

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:01:02PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2014-03-31 08:54:53 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > My conclusion here is that some part of the code is failing to examine > > > XMAX_INVALID before looking at the value stored in xmax itself. There >

Re: [HACKERS] MultiXactId error after upgrade to 9.3.4

Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-03-31 08:54:53 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > My conclusion here is that some part of the code is failing to examine > > XMAX_INVALID before looking at the value stored in xmax itself. There > > ought to be a short-circuit. Fortunately, this bug should be pretty >

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table

Josh Berkus wrote: > On 04/23/2014 07:43 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > I can propose contrib PostgreNoSQL providing following: > > 1) Table postgres as you proposed. > > 2) Functions: get_postgres(id intgeger) returns jsonb, set_postgres(id > > integer, data jsonb) returns void, search_postgres

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table

On 04/23/2014 07:43 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > I can propose contrib PostgreNoSQL providing following: > 1) Table postgres as you proposed. > 2) Functions: get_postgres(id intgeger) returns jsonb, set_postgres(id > integer, data jsonb) returns void, search_postgres(query jsonb) returns > setof

Re: [HACKERS] assertion failure 9.3.4

Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I'm thinking about the comparison of full infomask as you propose > instead of just the bits that we actually care about. I think the only > thing that could cause a spurious failure (causing an extra execution of > the HeapTupleSatisfiesUpdate call and the stuff below) i

Re: [HACKERS] Review: ECPG FETCH readahead

Hi, thanks for the review. 2014-04-23 17:20 keltezéssel, Antonin Houska írta: I haven't been too familiar with the ECPG internals so far but tried to do my best. Generic criteria * Does it follow the project coding guidelines? Yes. * Are there portability issues? S

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On 23 April 2014 07:14, Tom Lane wrote: > > Simon Riggs writes: > >> By now, some of you will be doubled over laughing as if this is an > >> April fool joke. > > > > Indeed. > > I do like to share the odd joke now and then, it has to be sai

Re: [HACKERS] Review: ECPG FETCH readahead

Antonin Houska wrote: > I haven't been too familiar with the ECPG internals so far but tried to > do my best. I'm afraid we're stuck on this patch until Michael has time to review it, or some other committer wants to acquire maintainership rights in the ECPG code. -- Álvaro Herrera

[HACKERS] Review: ECPG FETCH readahead

I haven't been too familiar with the ECPG internals so far but tried to do my best. Generic criteria * Does it follow the project coding guidelines? Yes. * Are there portability issues? Shouldn't be. I even noticed the code tries to avoid platform-specific behaviour of s

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > We start with a database called Postgres and a schema called Public. > Yet we don't start up with any usable tables. > > I propose we add a single table called Postgres when we Initdb > > CREATE TABLE Postgres (Id Integer, Data Jsonb); >

Re: [HACKERS] Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> That seems to be the consensus, but now we need a name for the >> soon-to-be-not-default opclass. What's a good short adjective for it? > "comprehensive"? Not particularly short ... > According to Merriam Webster: > Synonyms > all-embracing, al

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] aggregate returning anyarray and 'cannot determine result data type'

I wrote: > The same problem came up in connection with the "ordered set" aggregates > that were added recently, and that patch implemented an interesting > workaround: the final function for an OSA gets additional dummy arguments > of the same type as the aggregate inputs. They are always passed a

Re: [HACKERS] Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)

Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:20:42AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > >> On 23/04/14 00:40, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > >>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Where are we on the default JSONB opclass change? > > >>> FWIW, I still don'

Re: [HACKERS] Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)

Bruce Momjian writes: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:20:42AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> On 23/04/14 00:40, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: Where are we on the default JSONB opclass change? >>> FWIW, I still don't have any strong opinion here

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table

Heikki, * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnakan...@vmware.com) wrote: > On 04/23/2014 03:28 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >Agreed. I'll add it to the GSoC ideas page. > > I don't think this is a good GSoC project. Documentation-only > projects are not eligible for GSoC > (https://www.google-melange.com/gs

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table

On 23 April 2014 13:46, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 04/23/2014 03:28 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> >> * Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >>> >>> >+1 to the idea of an example database, used throughout the docs >>> >Sounds like a summer of code project. >> >> Agreed. I'll add it to the

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table

On 04/23/2014 03:28 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >+1 to the idea of an example database, used throughout the docs >Sounds like a summer of code project. Agreed. I'll add it to the GSoC ideas page. I don't think this is a good GSoC project. Documentati

Re: [HACKERS] WAL replay bugs

On 04/17/2014 07:59 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 04/08/2014 06:41 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:16 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: I've been playing with a little hack that records a before and after image of every page modification that is WAL-logged, and writes the i

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade and epoch

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 07:08:42AM +0400, Sergey Burladyan wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Sergey Konoplev wrote: > > > BTW, I didn't manage to make a test case yet. Recently, when I was > migrating several servers to skytools3 and upgrading from 9.0 to 9.2, > I noticed tha

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table

* Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > +1 to the idea of an example database, used throughout the docs > Sounds like a summer of code project. Agreed. I'll add it to the GSoC ideas page. > Since we don't have that now, it won't work for 9.4. None of this is on the table for 9.4 as far a

Re: [HACKERS] Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:20:42AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > > I vote for changing it, even though neither option is ideal I think > > that given the nature of datatype the current default will break > > inserts for common usage pattern a

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table

This seems like a much better idea - whereas a single table, related to nothing - on the other hand, is at best not very helpful (and it could be argued, might contribute to teaching poor data data design). Regards Mark On 23/04/14 19:13, Pavel Stehule wrote: Hello if you are thinking about

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table

On 23 April 2014 09:26, David Rowley wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> I propose we add a single table called Postgres when we Initdb >> >> CREATE TABLE Postgres (Id Integer, Data Jsonb); >> COMMENT ON TABLE Postgres IS 'Single table for quick start usage - >>

Re: [HACKERS] Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:20:42AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 23/04/14 00:40, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > >On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>Where are we on the default JSONB opclass change? > > > >FWIW, I still don't have any strong opinion here. I defer to others on > >

Re: [HACKERS] Typo in doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml? s/tranche/trance?

On 04/23/2014 12:15 PM, Amit Langote wrote: Hi, Attached fixes a typo in doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml. Thanks, applied. - Heikki -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table

On 04/23/2014 08:11 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > We start with a database called Postgres and a schema called Public. > Yet we don't start up with any usable tables. > > I propose we add a single table called Postgres when we Initdb > > CREATE TABLE Postgres (Id Integer, Data Jsonb); > COMMENT ON T

[HACKERS] Runing DBT2 on Postgresql

Hi All, I am trying to install dbt2 on postgresql database. cmake(configure) command work fine and but make command(build) give an error given below. I have no idea about how to solve it I have set export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=home/abhi/project/lib:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH dbt2pgdata = /home/abhi/project/pgs

Re: [HACKERS] Typo in doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml? s/tranche/trance?

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > Hi, > > Attached fixes a typo in doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml. > Sorry, typo in subject (kinda ironic!); I meant "s/trance/tranche?" Patch attached again. -- Amit docs-monitoring-lwlock-tranche-not-trance-fix.patch Description: Binary da

[HACKERS] Typo in doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml? s/tranche/trance?

Hi, Attached fixes a typo in doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml. -- Amit docs-monitoring-lwlock-tranche-not-trance-fix.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE FOREIGN TABLE ( ... LIKE ... )

(2014/04/08 9:26), Michael Paquier wrote: On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2014-04-05 11:46:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: ISTM this is because the proposed feature is wrongheaded. The basic concept of CREATE TABLE LIKE is that you're copying properties from another object o

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > I propose we add a single table called Postgres when we Initdb > > CREATE TABLE Postgres (Id Integer, Data Jsonb); > COMMENT ON TABLE Postgres IS 'Single table for quick start usage - > design your database'; > > The purpose of this is to

Re: [HACKERS] Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)

On 23/04/14 00:40, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: Where are we on the default JSONB opclass change? FWIW, I still don't have any strong opinion here. I defer to others on this question. I vote for changing it, even though neither option is idea

Re: [HACKERS] Missing pfree in logical_heap_rewrite_flush_mappings()

On 2014-04-22 22:37:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > I had to revert this patch. It causes a failure in the > > /contrib/test_decoding regression test. > > On closer inspection, it was simply pfree'ing the wrong pointer. Thanks for fixing. > I fixed that and also undid the

Re: [HACKERS] What use case is make_tuple_indirect() supposed to illustrate?

Hi, On 2014-04-22 20:22:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > And for that matter, it's a bit silly to be testing make_tuple_indirect > in a BEFORE INSERT/UPDATE trigger, because even if the tuple gets out > of the trigger without being flattened, it will certainly get flattened > mere nanoseconds later bef

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table

Craig Ringer wrote: >> Good that you mention that! I have wondered what to do with it. >> When I first connected to PostgreSQL, I created a sample table, but the >> senior developer from the other office told me that this is the "postgres" >> database and that I shouldn't create any objects there.

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table

On 23 April 2014 07:14, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: >> By now, some of you will be doubled over laughing as if this is an >> April fool joke. > > Indeed. I do like to share the odd joke now and then, it has to be said. So I'm glad I enriched your day. I was taught that ideas are accep

Re: [HACKERS] Minor improvements in alter_table.sgml

(2014/04/15 15:27), Etsuro Fujita wrote: (2014/04/14 23:53), Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: Attached is an updated version of the patch. I think the other changes deserve to be considered separately, and in particular I'm still not sure it's a good

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table

On 04/23/2014 03:20 PM, Albe Laurenz wrote: > Good that you mention that! I have wondered what to do with it. > When I first connected to PostgreSQL, I created a sample table, but the > senior developer from the other office told me that this is the "postgres" > database and that I shouldn't creat

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table

Simon Riggs wrote: > I propose we add a single table called Postgres when we Initdb > > CREATE TABLE Postgres (Id Integer, Data Jsonb); > COMMENT ON TABLE Postgres IS 'Single table for quick start usage - > design your database'; > > The purpose of this is to make the database immediately usa

Re: [HACKERS] 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table

Hello if you are thinking about this direction, then store there some demo project. I am don't think so isolated table has significant price. Regards Pavel 2014-04-23 8:45 GMT+02:00 Craig Ringer : > On 04/23/2014 02:11 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > I propose we add a single table called Postgre