31 марта 2015 г., в 23:33, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com написал(а):
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
On 3/27/15 5:15 AM, Vladimir Borodin wrote:
Master writes this record to xlog in btvacuumscan function after
vacuuming of all index pages. And in case of no pages with
By the way, what shoud we do about this?
- Waiting for someone's picking up this.
- Making another thread to attract notice
- Otherwise..
At Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:49:55 +0900, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote in
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
By the way, what should we do about this?
- Waiting for someone's picking up this.
- Making another thread to attract notice
- Otherwise..
I am sure someone will show up quickly and push the fix
Michael == Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com writes:
Michael For an extension that has a single branch compatible with a
Michael set of multiple major versions of Postgres, the cases are
Michael custom values for REGRESS_OPTS and REGRESS depending on the
Michael backend version. I
Hi,
At Wed, 1 Apr 2015 16:50:41 +0900, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote in cab7npqtxvdpju+a5rk3p2vge_ghavk+ht97_hugwfg9ulyh...@mail.gmail.com
I am sure someone will show up quickly and push the fix you provided.
Ok, I'll be a good boy.
regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
Hi, the attached is the v5 patch.
- Do feGetCurrentTimestamp() only when necessary.
- Rebased to current master
At Mon, 2 Mar 2015 20:21:36 +0900, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote
in
Hi,
As I'm writing a doc patch for 9.4 - 9.0, I'll discuss below on this formula
as this is the last one accepted by most of you.
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:39:26 -0800
Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
It looked to me that the formula, when descending from a previously
stressed state, would
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
Apart from that I have moved the Initialization of dsm segement from
InitNode phase to ExecFunnel() (on first execution) as per suggestion
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
Patch fixes the problem and now for Rescan, we don't need to Wait
for workers to finish.
I realized that there is a problem with this. If an error occurs in
one of the workers just as we're deciding to kill them
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
It looks to me like the is an InitPlan, not a subplan. There
shouldn't be any problem with a Funnel node having an InitPlan; it
looks to me like all of the InitPlan stuff is handled by common code
within the executor
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
So, suppose we have a plan like this:
Append
- Funnel
- Partial Seq Scan
- Funnel
- Partial Seq Scan
(repeated many times)
In earlier
On 03/15/15 16:21, Petr Jelinek wrote:
I also did all the other adjustments we talked about up-thread and
rebased against current master (there was conflict with 31eae6028).
Hi,
I did a review of the version submitted on 03/15 today, and only found a
few minor issues:
1) The
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think I figured out the problem. That fix only helps in the case
where the postmaster noticed the new registration previously but
didn't
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Tomas Vondra tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 03/15/15 16:21, Petr Jelinek wrote:
I also did all the other adjustments we talked about up-thread and
rebased against current master (there was conflict with 31eae6028).
Hi,
I did a review of the
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
It looks to me like the is an InitPlan, not a subplan. There
shouldn't be any problem with a Funnel node having an InitPlan; it
looks to me
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, if we *don't* handle it, we're going to need to insert some hack
to ensure that the planner doesn't create plans. And that seems
pretty unappealing. Maybe it'll significantly compromise plan
quality, and maybe
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 12:27:05PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
I haven't seen a specific number, it might depend on exactly which cipher is
negotiated. See for example http://openssl.6102.n7.nabble.com/
On 01/04/15 17:52, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
I am still not sure whether it is okay to move REPEATABLE from
unreserved to other category. In-fact last weekend I have spent some
time to see the exact reason for shift/reduce
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
I have just claimed this as committer in the CF, but on reviewing the emails
it looks like there is disagreement about the need for it at all, especially
from Tom and Robert.
I confess I have often wanted regnamespace,
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been thinking of bumping this patch to the June commitfest as the
patch only exists to provide the basic infrastructure for things like
parallel aggregation, aggregate before join, and perhaps auto updating
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 09:47:56AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:53:12PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 04:41:19PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 05:52:44PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
This junk digit zeroing matches the Oracle
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 10:26:34PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 12/19/2014 02:55 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I'm thinking that we should add a step to promotion, where we scan
pg_xlog for any segments higher than the timeline switch point, and
remove them, or mark them with .done so
On 03/31/2015 11:00 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
Hi,
The pg_amproc functions for inet_gist were accidentally added under the
gin heading. I have attached a patch which moves them to the gist
heading where they belong.
Thanks, moved.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On 03/31/2015 04:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
In view of that, you could certainly argue that if someone's bothered
to make a patch to add a new regFOO type, it's useful enough. I don't
want to end up with thirtysomething of them, but we don't seem to be
trending in that direction.
Or in short,
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
I am still not sure whether it is okay to move REPEATABLE from
unreserved to other category. In-fact last weekend I have spent some
time to see the exact reason for shift/reduce errors and tried some ways
but didn't
On 2015-04-01 11:40:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Aliouii Ali aliouii@aol.fr wrote:
I don't see how this helps. The problem with partitioning is that you
need a way to redirect the INSERT to another table, and there's no
built-in way to do that, so you have
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:22:39PM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:58:27PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:34:45AM -0400, Adam Brightwell wrote:
Previously, zero was rejected, what does it do now? I'm sure it
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Aliouii Ali aliouii@aol.fr wrote:
hi all,
back in
2011(http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1305138588.8811.3.ca...@vanquo.pezone.net),
an question the same as this one was asked
the anwser was :
I think they're very useful on views, but I
couldn't
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
The only possible issue I see on reading the patches is that these are
treated differently for dependencies than other regFOO types. Rather
than create a dependency if a value is used in a default expression, an
error is raised if one is found. Are
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 11:46:53AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 08:13:02PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I have pushed this after some rework. For instance, the
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 08:13:02PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I have pushed this after some rework. For instance, the 9.0 and 9.1
versions believed that URIs were accepted, but that stuff was introduced
in 9.2. I changed some other minor issues -- I hope not to have broken
too many other
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:
While looking at that I noticed two additional issues:
- In remote mode, the connection string to the promoted standby was
incorrect when running pg_rewind, leading to connection errors
- At least in my
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 08:13:02PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I have pushed this after some rework. For instance, the 9.0 and 9.1
versions believed that URIs were accepted, but that
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
REVOKE'ing access *without* removing the permissions checks would defeat
the intent of these changes, which is to allow an administrator to grant
the ability for a certain set of users to cancel and/or terminate
On 3/30/15 10:48 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
If we're able to extend based on page-level locks rather than the global
relation locking that we're doing now, then I'm not sure we really need
to adjust how big the extents are any more. The reason for making
bigger extents is because of the
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 03:29:04PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
I just noticed that authentication_timeout is ineffective for
replication=true type connections. That's because walsender doesn't
register a SIGINT handler and authentication_timeout relies on having
one.
There's no
* Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
On 02-04-2015 AM 09:24, Jim Nasby wrote:
The other potential advantage (and I have to think this could be a BIG
advantage) is extending by a large amount makes it more likely you'll get
contiguous blocks on the storage. That's going to
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 10:49:01PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 02:53:13PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
While looking at fe-auth.c I noticed quite a few places that weren't
bothering to make error messages localizable (ie, missing libpq_gettext
calls), and/or were failing
On 01/04/15 18:38, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
REPEATABLE is mandated by standard. I did try for quite some time to make it
unreserved but was not successful (I can only make it unreserved if I make
it mandatory but that's not a
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 04:02:52PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Yes, why not using palloc_extended instead of palloc_noerror that has been
clearly rejected in the other thread. Now, for palloc_extended we should copy
the flags of MemoryContextAllocExtended to fe_memutils.h and have the same
David Fetter wrote:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 08:13:02PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I have pushed this after some rework. For instance, the 9.0 and 9.1
versions believed that URIs were accepted, but that stuff was introduced
in 9.2. I changed some other minor issues -- I hope not to have
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 02:53:13PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
While looking at fe-auth.c I noticed quite a few places that weren't
bothering to make error messages localizable (ie, missing libpq_gettext
calls), and/or were failing to add a trailing newline as expected in
libpq error messages.
I have pushed this after some rework. For instance, the 9.0 and 9.1
versions believed that URIs were accepted, but that stuff was introduced
in 9.2. I changed some other minor issues -- I hope not to have broken
too many other things in the process. Please give the whole thing a
look,
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Where are we on this?
If we want to have allocate_recordbuf error out properly on frontend side,
we are going to need a equivalent of MemoryContextAllocExtended for
frontends in the shape of palloc_extended able to take
On 02-04-2015 AM 09:24, Jim Nasby wrote:
The other potential advantage (and I have to think this could be a BIG
advantage) is extending by a large amount makes it more likely you'll get
contiguous blocks on the storage. That's going to make a big difference for
SeqScan speed. It'd be
On 2015-04-01 13:15:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On 2015-04-01 12:46:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
So, the idea is that INSTEAD OF would behave like BEFORE but the tuple
it returns wouldn't actually be inserted? That wasn't clear to me
from the OP,
Hi Sawada,
On 3/25/15 9:24 AM, David Steele wrote:
On 3/25/15 7:46 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
2.
I got ERROR when executing function uses cursor.
1) create empty table (hoge table)
2) create test function as follows.
create function test() returns int as $$
declare
cur1 cursor for
On 3/23/15 12:40 PM, David Steele wrote:
On 3/23/15 1:31 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
I'm experimenting with a few approaches to do this without reintroducing
switch statements to test every command. That will require core changes,
but I think we can find an acceptable arrangement. I'll post a
Denish, all,
Moved over to -hackers to discuss specifics around addressing this.
* Denish Patel (den...@omniti.com) wrote:
Fair enough but they should be able to achieve their goal to avoid granting
SUPER to monitoring user. They have to tweak the grant/revoke as desired.
That's correct, but
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
here is rebased patch.
It contains both patches - row_to_array function and foreach array support.
While I don't have a problem with hstore_to_array, I don't think that
Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On 2015-04-01 12:46:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
So, the idea is that INSTEAD OF would behave like BEFORE but the tuple
it returns wouldn't actually be inserted? That wasn't clear to me
from the OP, but I guess it would be a
On 2015-04-01 13:29:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On 2015-04-01 13:15:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
If you have such a trigger, it's impossible to insert any rows, which
means the table doesn't need storage, which means it may as well be a
view, no? So
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2015-04-01 11:40:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I don't see how this helps. The problem with partitioning is that you
need a way to redirect the INSERT to another table, and there's no
built-in way to do that, so
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On 2015-04-01 13:29:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
WHEN won't help; if there are any INSTEAD OF triggers, no insert will
happen, whether the triggers actually fire or not.
Well, right now it doesn't work at all. It seems pretty reasonable to
define things
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
REPEATABLE is mandated by standard. I did try for quite some time to make it
unreserved but was not successful (I can only make it unreserved if I make
it mandatory but that's not a solution). I haven't been in fact even
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
j...@dalibo.com wrote:
Hi,
As I'm writing a doc patch for 9.4 - 9.0, I'll discuss below on this formula
as this is the last one accepted by most of you.
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:39:26 -0800
Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
It
On 04/01/2015 12:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 04/01/2015 12:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
The only possible issue I see on reading the patches is that these are
treated differently for dependencies than other regFOO
On 1 April 2015 at 18:37, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-04-01 13:29:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
As for partitioning, you could do this:
create table parent(...);
create table child(...) inherits(parent); -- repeat as needed
create view v as select * from parent;
attach
On 03/31/2015 09:19 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 03/31/2015 10:51 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-03-31 10:49:06 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 03/31/2015 04:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Perhaps we could consider it after a year or two, once 9.4 is indeed
very stable, but at that
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On 2015-04-01 13:15:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
If you have such a trigger, it's impossible to insert any rows, which
means the table doesn't need storage, which means it may as well be a
view, no? So this still seems to me like a wart not a useful
Emre Hasegeli e...@hasegeli.com writes:
[ inet-selfuncs-v14.patch ]
After further reflection I concluded that the best way to deal with the
O(N^2) runtime problem for the join selectivity function was to set a
limit on the number of statistics values we'd consider, as was discussed
awhile back
On 04/01/2015 12:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
The only possible issue I see on reading the patches is that these are
treated differently for dependencies than other regFOO types. Rather
than create a dependency if a value is used in a default expression, an
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 04/01/2015 12:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
The only possible issue I see on reading the patches is that these are
treated differently for dependencies than other regFOO types. Rather
than create a dependency if
On 2015-04-01 12:46:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2015-04-01 11:40:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Without INSTEAD OF you can't, to my knowledge, return a valid tuple from
the top level table without also inserting
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On 2015-04-01 12:46:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
So, the idea is that INSTEAD OF would behave like BEFORE but the tuple
it returns wouldn't actually be inserted? That wasn't clear to me
from the OP, but I guess it would be a reasonable way to go.
I'm
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 05:06:49PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Uh, you broke asciidoctor 1.5.2. ;-) LOL
I installed the Asciidoctor Firefox plugin:
Asciidoctor has confirmed they have a bug and hope to fix it in their
next release:
Re: Bruce Momjian 2015-04-01 20150401160907.gj4...@momjian.us
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 12:27:05PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
I haven't seen a specific number, it might depend on exactly which cipher is
negotiated. See for example http://openssl.6102.n7.nabble.com/
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 06:18:35PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:48:52PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
Hi,
I've played with trying to find out which minimal set of files I need
from the old version to make pg_upgrade work. Interestingly, this
includes the good
I wrote:
Observe these recent buildfarm failures:
http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=muledt=2015-03-21%2000%3A30%3A02
http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=guaibasaurusdt=2015-03-23%2004%3A17%3A01
69 matches
Mail list logo
