Re: [HACKERS] pg_resetxlog to clear backup start/end locations.

Hello, thank you for the comments. > On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On 13 June 2014 12:27, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > >> I think that pg_resetxlog should reset backup locations by default > >> since they are useless (rather harmful) after pg_resetxlog. Thought? > > > > +1

Re: [HACKERS] review: tab completion for set search_path TO

Hello I am sorry, I expected so review shold to start with new thread. I was wrong, so next reviews I will use e existing threads Regards pavel Dne 23. 6. 2014 7:39 "Michael Paquier" napsal(a): > On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> this patch https://comm

[HACKERS] Add a filed to PageHeaderData

Dear Hackers I wanted to add a char array with length of 20 to PageHeaderData in include/storage/bufpage.h. Surprisingly regression test failed on rangetypes test! The diff of resulted and expected file is : *** 968,974 select count(*) from test_range_spgist where ir -|- int4range(100,500

Re: [HACKERS] review: tab completion for set search_path TO

On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Hello, > > this patch https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1443 is > trivial with zero risk. > > Patch is applicable without any issues, compilation was without any issues > too. > Just wondering: why creating a new thread

[HACKERS] Re: Request for Patch Feedback: Lag & Lead Window Functions Can Ignore Nulls

Hi. What's the status of this patch? Jeff, Álvaro, you're listed as reviewers. Have you had a chance to look at the updated version that Nick posted? -- Abhijit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org

Re: [HACKERS] 9.5 CF1

Hi. One week into the CommitFest, we now have nine committed patches, ten ready for committer, fourteen waiting on their author, and fifty-nine still awaiting review. Thanks to all the people who submitted a review (and a special mention for MauMau for reviewing the most patches so far, of which

Re: [HACKERS] pg_resetxlog to clear backup start/end locations.

On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 13 June 2014 12:27, Fujii Masao wrote: > >> I think that pg_resetxlog should reset backup locations by default >> since they are useless (rather harmful) after pg_resetxlog. Thought? > > +1 > > Do we regard that point as a bug that should b

Re: [HACKERS] idle_in_transaction_timeout

At 2014-06-22 19:45:08 -0700, david.g.johns...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sunday, June 22, 2014, Kevin Grittner-5 [via PostgreSQL] < > ml-node+s1045698n580830...@n5.nabble.com> wrote: > > > If we stick with the rule that what is to the left of _timeout is > > what is being cancelled, the a GUC to can

Re: [HACKERS] tab completion for setting search_path

Ian Barwick writes: > On 23/06/14 00:58, Andres Freund wrote: >> I thought about committing this but couldn't get over this bit. If you >> type "SELECT * FROM pg_cat" it'll get autocompleted to >> pg_catalog.pg_ and "pg_temp" will list all the temp schemas >> including the numeric and toast ones.

Re: [HACKERS] idle_in_transaction_timeout

On Sunday, June 22, 2014, Kevin Grittner-5 [via PostgreSQL] < ml-node+s1045698n580830...@n5.nabble.com> wrote: > Andres Freund <[hidden email] > > wrote: > > > I think we'll want a version of this that just fails the > > transaction once we hav

Re: [HACKERS] idle_in_transaction_timeout

Andres Freund wrote: > I think we'll want a version of this that just fails the > transaction once we have the infrastructure. So we should choose > a name that allows for a complimentary GUC. If we stick with the rule that what is to the left of _timeout is what is being cancelled, the a GUC to

Re: [HACKERS] tab completion for setting search_path

On 23/06/14 00:58, Andres Freund wrote: On 2014-05-05 09:10:17 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2014-05-03 00:13:45 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: On Friday, May 2, 2014, Jeff Janes wrote: Why should we exclude system schemata? That seems more lik

Re: [HACKERS] API change advice: Passing plan invalidation info from the rewriter into the planner?

Dean, * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote: > On 17 June 2014 20:19, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Dean Rasheed > > wrote: > >> Yeah, I was thinking something like this could work, but I would go > >> further. Suppose you had separate GRANTable privileges fo

Re: [HACKERS] [GSoC] Clustering in MADlib - status update

Hi! Here's my report for week 5. Week 5 - 2014/06/22 This week has been full of debugging of the main SQL function. The previous week, I had been able to come up with a working function to compute a medoid for a given group of points, but since then I've struggled to integrate it with the rest o

Re: [HACKERS] Allowing join removals for more join types

On 22 June 2014 12:51, Simon Riggs wrote: > Looks good on initial look. Tests 2 and 3 seem to test the same thing. There are no tests which have multiple column clauselist/sortlists, nor tests for cases where the clauselist is a superset of the sortlist. Test comments should refer to "join rem

Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

Hello I returned to review this patch after sleeping - and I have to say, these patches doesn't break a compatibility. This feature has two patches: createdb_alterdb_grammar_refactoring.v1-1.patch and database_attributes.v2-1.patch. First patch do some cleaning in gram rules a CREATE DATABASE and

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC, POC] Don't require a NBuffer sized PrivateRefCount array of local buffer pins

On 2014-06-22 19:31:34 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > Yes, that's roughly how the SLRU code works also, so sounds good. Heh. I rather see that as an argument for it sounding bad :) Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development,

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC, POC] Don't require a NBuffer sized PrivateRefCount array of local buffer pins

On 22 June 2014 16:09, Andres Freund wrote: >> So if we treat the fast array as a circular LRU, we get >> * pinning a new buffer when array has an empty slot is O(1) >> * pinning a new buffer when array is full causes us to move the LRU >> into the hash table and then use that element >> * unpinn

Re: [HACKERS] idle_in_transaction_timeout

2014-06-22 19:47 GMT+02:00 Andres Freund : > On 2014-06-22 09:27:24 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote: > > Andres Freund wrote: > > > > > The idea with the GUC name is that if we ever get support for > > > cancelling transactions we can name that > > > idle_in_transaction_transaction_timeout? > > > Tha

Re: [HACKERS] idle_in_transaction_timeout

On 2014-06-22 09:27:24 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Andres Freund wrote: > > > The idea with the GUC name is that if we ever get support for > > cancelling transactions we can name that > > idle_in_transaction_transaction_timeout? > > That seems a bit awkward... > > No, the argument was that f

Re: [HACKERS] idle_in_transaction_timeout

Andres Freund wrote: > The idea with the GUC name is that if we ever get support for > cancelling transactions we can name that > idle_in_transaction_transaction_timeout? > That seems a bit awkward... No, the argument was that for all the other *_timeout settings what came before _timeout was th

Re: [HACKERS] tab completion for setting search_path

On 2014-05-05 09:10:17 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2014-05-03 00:13:45 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > > > On Friday, May 2, 2014, Jeff Janes wrote: > > Why should we exclude system schemata? That seems more likely to be > > confusing than h

Re: [HACKERS] idle_in_transaction_timeout

On 2014-06-21 11:23:44 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > On 06/19/2014 06:33 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > > >>> ISTM our realistic options are for seconds or msec as the unit.  If it's > >>> msec, we'd be limited to INT_MAX msec or around 600 hours at the top end, > >>> w

Re: [HACKERS] review: Built-in binning functions

Hi, On 2014-06-21 20:41:43 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > review: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1484 Can you please not start new threads for reviews of smaller features? Doing so makes following the discussion much harder. I'm fine with changing the subject if the reply h

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC, POC] Don't require a NBuffer sized PrivateRefCount array of local buffer pins

On 2014-06-22 12:38:04 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 9 April 2014 15:09, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund writes: > >> On 2014-04-09 18:13:29 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > >>> An orthogonal issue I noted is that we never check for overflow in the ref > >>> count itself. While I understand over

Re: [HACKERS] idle_in_transaction_timeout

Abhijit Menon-Sen > I've marked it Ready for Committer after a quick read-through. I took a pass through it with an eye toward committing it.  I found a couple minor whitespace issues, where the patch didn't follow conventional indenting practice; I can fix that no problem.  I found that as it s

Re: [Fwd: Re: [HACKERS] proposal: new long psql parameter --on-error-stop]

Hello third version with Erik's update Thanks Erik Regards Pavel 2014-06-22 12:01 GMT+02:00 Erik Rijkers : > Hi Pavel, > > It seems you overlooked the patch that I sent? > > There are some typo's in your patch (also in v2) like: > > PROPMPT1, PROPMT2, PROPMPT3 > > SIGLELINE > > I fixed those

Re: [HACKERS] review: Built-in binning functions

2014-06-22 13:02 GMT+02:00 Petr Jelinek : > Hi, > > On 21/06/14 20:41, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> review: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1484 >> >> > Thanks for review. > > > >> My comments: >> >> * I miss in documentation description of implementation - its is based >> on b

Re: [HACKERS] How about a proper TEMPORARY TABLESPACE?

* Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 06/18/2014 08:00 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > PG would need to enforce that it's only used for temporary objects > > as well, of course.. Or at least, that was my thinking on this. > > A way to put UNLOGGED objects in such a space and have them r

Re: [HACKERS] [REVIEW] Re: Fix xpath() to return namespace definitions

2014-06-16 22:52 GMT+07:00 Abhijit Menon-Sen : > Thanks for the patch, and welcome to Postgres development. > > I can confirm that it works fine. I have attached here a very slightly > tweaked version of the patch (removed trailing whitespace, and changed > some comment text). > > I'm marking th

Re: [HACKERS] pg_resetxlog to clear backup start/end locations.

On 13 June 2014 12:27, Fujii Masao wrote: > I think that pg_resetxlog should reset backup locations by default > since they are useless (rather harmful) after pg_resetxlog. Thought? +1 Do we regard that point as a bug that should be backpatched? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2n

Re: [HACKERS] Allowing join removals for more join types

On 17 June 2014 11:04, David Rowley wrote: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Noah Misch wrote: >> >> As a point of procedure, I recommend separating the semijoin support into >> its >> own patch. Your patch is already not small; delaying non-essential parts >> will >> make the essential parts m

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC, POC] Don't require a NBuffer sized PrivateRefCount array of local buffer pins

On 9 April 2014 15:09, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: >> On 2014-04-09 18:13:29 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: >>> An orthogonal issue I noted is that we never check for overflow in the ref >>> count itself. While I understand overflowing int32 counter will take a >>> large number of pins

Re: [HACKERS] review: Built-in binning functions

Hi, On 21/06/14 20:41, Pavel Stehule wrote: review: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1484 Thanks for review. My comments: * I miss in documentation description of implementation - its is based on binary searching, and when second parameter is unsorted array, then it

Re: [HACKERS] API change advice: Passing plan invalidation info from the rewriter into the planner?

On 17 June 2014 20:19, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Dean Rasheed > wrote: >> Yeah, I was thinking something like this could work, but I would go >> further. Suppose you had separate GRANTable privileges for direct >> access to individual tables, bypassing RLS, e.g. >> >>

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: new long psql parameter --on-error-stop

2014-06-22 9:32 GMT+02:00 MauMau : > From: "Pavel Stehule" > > pg_dumpall aligns all options left with each other, whether they are short >>> or long. >>> >>> -x, --no-privileges do not dump privileges (grant/revoke) >>> --binary-upgrade for use by upgrade utilities only >

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: new long psql parameter --on-error-stop

From: "Pavel Stehule" pg_dumpall aligns all options left with each other, whether they are short or long. -x, --no-privileges do not dump privileges (grant/revoke) --binary-upgrade for use by upgrade utilities only --column-inserts dump data as INSERT comman